Title: Selby v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 10, 2011
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: August 10, 2011

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
STEPHEN SELBY, 
 
 
§ 
§ 
No.  10, 2011 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court BelowBSuperior Court   
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware in   
 
 
v. 
 
 
 
§ 
and for New Castle County  
§ 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
Cr. ID No. 1003010210 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Submitted: May 25, 2011 
Decided:  August 10, 2011 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices.  
 
O R D E R 
 
This 10th day of August 2011, upon consideration of the appellant=s 
brief filed pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 26(c), his attorney=s motion to 
withdraw, and the State=s response, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
In April 2010, the appellant, Stephen Selby, was indicted on 
charges of Assault in the Second Degree, Terroristic Threatening, 
Noncompliance with Conditions of Bond, Kidnapping in the First Degree 
and Reckless Endangering in the First Degree.  On September 21, 2010, 
Selby agreed to plead nolo contendere to Kidnapping in the First Degree.  In 
exchange, the State agreed to drop the other charges and to not seek habitual 
2 
 
offender sentencing.  Thereafter, the Superior Court referred the matter for a 
presentence investigation.  
(2) 
On December 17, 2010, the Superior Court sentenced Selby to 
twenty years at Level V suspended after eight years for three years at Level 
III suspended after one year for two years at Level II.  Immediately after he 
was sentenced, Selby made a verbal request to withdraw his plea, which the 
Superior Court denied.  This appeal followed. 
(3) 
Selby’s appellate counsel (“Counsel”)1 has filed a brief and a 
motion to withdraw pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 26(c) (“Rule 26(c)”).2  
Counsel asserts that, based upon a complete and careful examination of the 
record, there are no arguably appealable issues.  Selby, through Counsel, has 
submitted two issues for the Court’s consideration.  The State has responded 
to Selby’s issues and has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment. 
(4) 
When reviewing a motion to withdraw and an accompanying 
brief under Rule 26(c), this Court must be satisfied that defense counsel has 
made a conscientious examination of the record and the law for arguable 
claims.3  The Court must also conduct its own review of the record and 
                                            
1 Selby was represented by different counsel at trial.   
2 See Del. Supr. Ct. R. 26(c) (governing criminal appeals without merit). 
3 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 
U.S. 429, 442 (1988); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).  
3 
 
determine whether the appeal is so totally devoid of at least arguably 
appealable issues that it can be decided without an adversary presentation.4 
(5) 
In his first issue on appeal, Selby claims that the State violated 
its agreement “not to recommend a sentence.”  Selby’s claim is not 
supported by the record.   There is nothing in Selby’s written plea agreement 
or the transcript of the plea proceeding prohibiting the State from making a 
sentencing recommendation.   
(6) 
In his second issue on appeal, Selby claims that the Superior 
Court relied on “factual inaccuracies,” namely allegations of domestic 
violence for which he was not convicted, when imposing sentence.  Selby’s 
claim is not supported by the record and is otherwise without merit.  When 
deciding an appropriate sentence, the Superior Court may consider a wide 
range of factors and is not limited to prior criminal convictions.5  To the 
extent the Superior Court considered unproven allegations of domestic 
violence when imposing sentence, Selby’s claim of error is without merit in 
the absence of any evidence that the court relied on “demonstrably false 
information or information lacking a minimum indicium of reliability.”6         
                                            
4 Id. 
5 Mayes v. State, 604 A.2d 839, 842-43 (Del. 1992). 
6  Id. at 843. 
4 
 
(7) 
Delaware law is well-established that “`[a]ppellate review of a 
sentence generally ends upon determination that the sentence is within the 
statutory limits prescribed by the legislature.’”7  The statutory range for 
Kidnapping in the First Degree is two to twenty-five years.8  The sentence 
imposed in Selby’s case – twenty years at Level V suspended after eight 
years for probation – was within the statutory limits. 
(8) 
The Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Selby’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We are satisfied that Counsel made a conscientious effort 
to examine the record and the law and properly determined that Selby could 
not raise a meritorious claim on appeal. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to 
affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.  
The motion to withdraw is moot. 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                            
7 Id. at 842 (quoting Ward v. State, 567 A.2d 1296, 1297 (Del. 1989). 
8 See Del. Code Ann., tit. 11 § 783A (defining Kidnapping in the First Degree, a class B 
felony) (2007 & Supp. 2010).  See Del. Code Ann., tit. 11 § 4205(b)(2) (2007) (providing 
that statutory sentencing range for class B felony is two to twenty-five years).