Calixte v. State

• Court: Supreme Court of Delaware
• Decided: March 3, 2026
• Docket: 329, 2025
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

HABIEL L. CALIXTE, § § No. 329, 2025 Defendant Below, § Appellant, § Court Below—Superior Court § of the State of Delaware v. § § Cr. ID No. 2301014835 (S) STATE OF DELAWARE, § § Appellee. §

Submitted: January 8, 2026 Decided: March 3, 2026

Before VALIHURA, TRAYNOR, and LEGROW, Justices.

ORDER

After consideration of the brief and motion to withdraw filed by the

appellant’s counsel under Supreme Court Rule 26(c), the State’s response, and the

record on appeal, it appears to the Court that:

(1) In February 2023, a grand jury charged Habiel L. Calixte with dealing

in children, second-degree criminal solicitation, offensive touching, third-degree

unlawful sexual contact, third-degree criminal solicitation, two counts of sexual

harassment, and three counts of disorderly conduct. The charges arose from

incidents in January when Calixte: (i) approached a family, asked the father if his

eleven-year-old child was for sale, and frightened the child by grabbing her arm; (ii)

touched the crotch of an employee at a cellular service store without the employee’s permission and disregarded the employee’s requests that he leave the store; and (iii)

pointed to the crotch of a female customer at a different store and stated that he

wished to buy it.

(2) After a psychiatric/psychological evaluation, Calixte was deemed not

competent and transported to Delaware Psychiatric Center for his competency to be

restored. Additional reports regarding Calixte’s competency were submitted to the

Superior Court in December 2023 and June 2024. On June 24, 2024, the Superior

Court ordered that Calixte be transported back to the Department of Correction.

Calixte filed a motion to sever the charges and a motion in limine to exclude his

translated statement to police because the translator was non-certified. The Superior

Court denied the motions. Calixte waived his right to a jury trial.

(3) Following a bench trial, the Superior Court found Calixte guilty on all

charges. The Superior Court sentenced Calixte as follows: (i) for dealing in children,

five years of Level V incarceration, suspended for one year of Level III GPS; (ii) for

second-degree criminal solicitation, three years of Level V incarceration, suspended

after one year with credit for one year previously served, for one year of Level III

probation; (iii) for offensive touching, thirty days of Level V incarceration with

credit for thirty days previously served; (iv) for third-degree unlawful sexual contact,

one year of Level V incarceration with credit for one year previously served; (v) for

third-degree criminal solicitation, one year of Level V incarceration, suspended for

2 one year of Level III probation; (vi) for each count of sexual harassment, thirty days

of Level V incarceration, suspended for thirty days previously served; and (vii) for

each count of disorderly conduct, thirty days of Level V incarceration suspended for

one year of Level III probation. This appeal followed.

(4) On appeal, Calixte’s counsel (“Counsel”) filed a brief and a motion to

withdraw under Rule 26(c). Counsel asserts that, based upon a complete and careful

examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable issues. Calixte’s counsel

was unable to comply with Rule 26(c)(ii), which requires defense counsel to inform

their client of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provide them with a copy of the

motion to withdraw and the accompanying brief so that they can submit points,

because Calixte’s location was unknown. Calixte was subject to an immigration

detainer and taken into custody by Immigration and Customers Enforcement (“ICE”)

after sentencing. Counsel states that it appears Calixte was deported to Haiti. The

State has responded to the Rule 26(c) brief and has moved to affirm the Superior

Court’s judgment.

(5) 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

3 devoid of at least arguably appealable issues that it can be decided without an

adversary presentation. 1

(6) This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded that

Calixte’s 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 Calixte could not raise a

meritorious claim on appeal.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior

Court be AFFIRMED. The motion to withdraw is moot.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Gary F. Traynor Justice

1 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); Leacock v. State, 690 A.2d 926, 927-28 (Del. 1996).