Case Title: Griffith v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 157, 2002

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2002-11-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DANIEL J. GRIFFITH, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 157, 2002 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr.A. No. S00-12-0531 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: October 16, 2002 
 
 
 
 
  Decided:   November 25, 2002 
 
Before WALSH, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 25th day of November 2002, 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 thereto, it appears to the Court 
that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Daniel J. Griffith, was found guilty by 
a Superior Court jury of Conspiracy in the Second Degree.1  He was 
                                                          
 
1The jury found Griffith not guilty of Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of 
a Felony, Robbery in the First Degree and Wearing a Disguise During the Commission of 
a Felony. 
 
2
sentenced as an habitual offender to 10 years incarceration at Level V.2  This 
is Griffith’s direct appeal. 
 
(2) 
Griffith’s trial counsel has filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  The standard and scope of review 
applicable to the consideration of a motion to withdraw and an 
accompanying brief under Rule 26(c) is twofold: (a) the Court must be 
satisfied that defense counsel has made  a conscientious examination of the 
record and the law for claims that could arguably support the appeal; and (b) 
the Court must 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.3 
 
(3) 
Griffith’s counsel asserts that, based upon a careful and 
complete examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable issues.  
By letter, Griffith’s counsel informed Griffith of the provisions of Rule 26(c) 
and provided him with a copy of the motion to withdraw, the accompanying 
brief and the complete trial transcript.  Griffith was also informed of his 
right to supplement his attorney’s presentation.  Griffith responded with a 
brief that raises six issues for this Court’s consideration.  The State has 
                                                          
 
2DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 4214(a). 
3Penson 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
responded to the position taken by Griffith’s counsel as well as the issues 
raised by Griffith and has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment. 
 
(4) 
Griffith lists six issues for this Court’s consideration.4  He 
claims that: a) the jury was improperly sequestered; b) the judge engaged in 
improper conduct; c) his Miranda rights were violated; d) he was denied due 
process; e) the prosecution engaged in misconduct and abuse; and f) the 
police were biased and prejudiced.  With regard to all six issues listed by 
Griffith, he has not cited any facts in the record to support his allegations 
and has made no legal arguments and cited no legal authorities. 
 
(5) 
The evidence presented at trial established that, around 9:00 
p.m. on December 23, 2000, a man wearing a ski mask and carrying a sawed 
off shotgun robbed Bodie’s Dairy Market in Millsboro, Delaware.  The 
robber made his getaway in a Ryder rental truck that was parked nearby.  A 
substantial portion of the trial testimony focused on the identity of the 
robber.  The key prosecution witnesses were Michael Connor and his father, 
Willard Connor.  Both had been charged in connection with the robbery, had 
entered guilty pleas and were serving prison terms at the time of the trial.  
Both admitted that, on the day before and on the day of the robbery, they had 
driven around in the Ryder truck with Griffith making plans to commit a 
                                                          
 
4Griffith merely lists these issues without providing any supporting argument. 
 
4
robbery.  However, they denied that either one of them had participated 
directly in the robbery, stating that they had only waited for Griffith in the 
Ryder truck while he robbed Bodie’s.  The defense disputed that it was 
Griffith who robbed Bodie’s and presented the testimony of two prison 
inmates who stated that, while in prison, Michael Connor had told them it 
was he who robbed the store.  The defense presented no evidence disputing 
that Griffith had discussed committing a robbery with Michael and Willard 
Connor. 
 
(6) 
We have reviewed the entire record in this case and conclude 
that there is no factual support for any of Griffith’s claims.  Moreover, the 
testimony of Michael and Willard Connor provided more than sufficient 
evidence to support Griffith’s conviction for conspiracy in the second 
degree.5  
 
(7) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Griffith’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We are also satisfied that Griffith’s counsel has made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and has properly determined that 
Griffith could not raise a meritorious claim in this appeal. 
                                                          
 
5Morrisey v. State, 620 A.2d 207, 213 (Del. 1993); DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 512.  
 
5
 
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/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice