Title: Carney v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 581, 2014
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: December 15, 2014

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
SEBASTIAN CARNEY, 
 
 
Defendant-Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff-Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 581, 2014 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below:  Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr. ID Nos. 1008015411, 
§  1102006677, 1105007856, 
§  and 1209003022 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: November 12, 2014 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: December 15, 2014 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and VALIHURA, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 15th day of December 2014, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief, the State’s motion to affirm, and the record below, it appears to the 
Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Sebastian Carney, filed this appeal from the 
Superior Court’s order sentencing him for violating probation.  The State has filed 
a motion to affirm the judgment below on the ground that it is manifest on the face 
of Carney’s opening brief that his appeal is without merit.  We agree and affirm.   
 
(2) 
The record reflects that Carney pled guilty in March 2011 to one 
count of Theft.  He was sentenced to one year at Level V suspended entirely for 
probation.  In October 2011, Carney pled guilty to another count of Theft for 
 
2 
which he was sentenced to one year at Level V suspended entirely for probation.  
He also pled guilty to a separate charge of Burglary in the Third Degree for which 
he was sentenced to three years at Level V (with credit for 130 days served) to be 
suspended after serving six months in prison for decreasing levels of supervision.  
In September 2012, Carney pled guilty to Possession of Heroin for which he was 
sentenced to one year at Level V suspended entirely for probation.  For every new 
criminal conviction, Carney also was found in violation of his probation with 
respect to his earlier convictions and sentenced accordingly.  The record reflects 
that, since March 2011, Carney has pled guilty to four criminal charges for which 
he was sentenced to a total period of six years at Level V incarceration.  Most of 
that Level V time was suspended for probation.  As of November 2013, Carney 
had four years and six months of Level V time remaining to be served on his 
sentences. 
 
(3) 
In July 2014, Carney was charged with a VOP for failure to report and 
for failing to comply with the special conditions of his probationary sentences.  
The Superior Court found Carney in violation and sentenced him on September 16, 
2014 to a total period of four years and one month at Level V incarceration to be 
suspended after serving one year and one month in prison for decreasing levels of 
supervision.  This appeal followed. 
 
3 
 
(4) 
In his opening brief on appeal, Carney asserts that the Superior Court 
imposed an excessive sentence under the circumstances and failed to credit him 
with time served.  He also contends that the TASC counselor who appeared at the 
VOP hearing lied under oath.  Carney, however, does not challenge the Superior 
Court’s finding that he violated the terms of his probation by failing to report and 
by failing to comply with his special conditions. 
 
(5) 
Upon finding a defendant in violation of probation, the Superior Court 
is authorized to impose any period of incarceration up to and including the balance 
of the Level V time remaining to be served on the original sentence.1  In this case, 
contrary to Carney’s contention, the record reflects that Carney had a balance of 
four years and six months remaining to be served on his original sentences.  Upon 
finding Carney in violation of probation, the Superior Court sentenced him to a 
total period of four years and one month at Level V incarceration, but suspended 
his sentence after only one year and one month in prison.  This sentence was 
within statutory limits, was not excessive given his repeated failures to bring 
himself into compliance with the law generally and with the conditions of his 
probation (notwithstanding the probation officer’s recommendation for a lesser 
sentence), and does not reflect a closed mind by the sentencing judge.2  Indeed, the 
                                                 
1 11 Del. C. § 4334(c) (2007). 
2 See Weston v. State, 832 A.2d 742, 746 (Del. 2003). 
 
4 
record reveals that the Superior Court was reasoned in dealing with Carney, and 
issued the sentence it did only after he failed to take advantage of several earlier 
instances of leniency.  Under the circumstances, we conclude that the Superior 
Court did not err or abuse its discretion in rejecting the probation officer’s 
recommendation or in exceeding the sentencing guidelines for Carney’s fourth 
VOP in three years.3   
 
(6) 
Moreover, to the extent that Carney challenges the TASC counselor’s 
testimony, this Court is unable to review that claim because Carney failed to order 
and provide this Court with a copy of the transcript of the VOP hearing and 
sentencing.  As we have held many times, the failure to include adequate 
transcripts of the proceedings, as required by the rules of the Court, precludes 
appellate review of a defendant’s claims of error in the proceedings below.4 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
                                                 
3 See Wynn v. State, 23 A.3d 145, 148-49 (Del. 2011). 
4 Tricoche v. State, 525 A.2d 151, 154 (Del. 1987).