Title: Walls v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 336, 2018
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: December 4, 2018

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
CHRISTIAN D. WALLS, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 336, 2018 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID No. 1708014865 (N) 
§   
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: November 16, 2018 
 
Decided: 
December 4, 2018 
 
Before VAUGHN, SEITZ, and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
 
ORDER 
 
The appellant’s Supreme Court Rule 26(c) brief, the State’s response, and the 
record on appeal reflect that:   
(1) 
On April 20, 2018, a Superior Court jury found the appellant, Christian 
D. Walls, guilty of Shoplifting Over $1,500.00.  The Superior Court sentenced Walls 
to two years of Level V incarceration, suspended for one year of Level II probation.  
This appeal followed. 
(2) 
On appeal, Walls’ counsel (“Counsel”) filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw under Supreme Court Rule 26(c).  Counsel asserts that, based upon a 
complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable 
 
2 
issues.  Counsel informed Walls of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Walls 
with a copy of the motion to withdraw and the accompanying brief.   
(3) 
Counsel also informed Walls of his right to identify any points he 
wished this Court to consider on appeal.  Walls has not provided any points for this 
Court to consider.  The State has responded to the Rule 26(c) brief 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: (i) be satisfied that defense counsel has made a 
conscientious examination of the record and the law for arguable claims; and (ii) 
conduct its own review of the record and determine whether the appeal is so totally 
devoid of at least arguably appealable issues that it can be decided without an 
adversary presentation.1 
(5) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded that 
Walls’ appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable issue.  
We also are satisfied that Counsel has made a conscientious effort to examine the 
record and the law and has properly determined that Walls could not raise a 
meritorious claim in this appeal.   
 
 
                                                 
1 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); Leacock v. State, 690 A.2d 926, 927-28 (Del. 1996). 
 
3 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior  
Court is AFFIRMED.  The motion to withdraw is moot. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice