Case Title: Copper v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2003-12-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE-OF DELAWARE'*}

WILLIAM COPPER, § mm vec 12 P 230
§ cei i
Defendant Below- § No. 375, 2003 "lh tT OH
Appellant, § Court Below—Superior Court
§ of the State of Delaware
v. § in and for New Castle County
§ Cr.A. Nos. IN03-01-0425,
STATE OF DELAWARE, § -0426, and -0427
§
Plaintiff Below- §

Appellee. §

 

‘Submitted: October 27, 2003 i
Decided: December 12, 2003 i

Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and JACOBS, Justices.

ORDER

 

This 12° day of December 2003, upon consideration of the apelin
Supreme Court Rule 26(c) brief, his attorney's motion to withdraw, and the See's
response thereto, it appears to the Court that: |

(1) In May 2003, a Superior Court jury found the appellant, Whliam
Copper, guilty of third degree assault, menacing, and act of intimidation od not
guilty of possession of a deadly weapon during the commission of a felony. The
Superior Court sentenced Copper to a total period of four years and three mgnths
at Level V incarceration to be followed by twenty-two months at decreasing levels

of supervision. This is Copper's direct appeal.
(2) Copper's counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion tg,
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c). Coppers counsel asserts that, based port

  

2 compete and careful exaimation of the reso thee are no arpa,

appealable issues. By letter, Copper’s attomey informed him of the
provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Copper with a copy of the motion a
‘withdraw and the accompanying brief. Copper also was informed of ig
right to supplement his attomey’s presentation. Copper has raised one issue,

for this Court's consideration. Copper claims to have ont

 

evidence that calls into question the credibility of the victim's testimony,

  

‘The State has responded to Copper’s argument, as well as the position taken:

bby Copper's counsel, and has moved to affirm the Superior Court's decision, |;

 

 

(3) The standard and scope of review applicable to Sg
consideration of a motion to withdraw and an accompanying brief snd
Rule 26(c is twofold: (2) this Court must be satisfied that defense counsel
hhas made a conscientious examination of the record and the law for arguable.
claims; and (@) this Court must conduct its own review of the record and.
determine whether the appeal is so totally devoid of at least sxoubly,

appealable issues that it can be decided without an adversary presentation.' +
:

T Penson v. Ohio, 488 US. 75, 83 (1988); McCoy v. Court of Appeals fi
acomin 85 U.S. 29, 2 (1988), Andes v Caf, 86S. 78, PaaCRoET, A
|

 
(4) The victim, Vickie Christmas, testified at trial that she hag
dated Copper for seven or eight months. On December 28, 2002, Copper
came to visit her at work, and the two made plans to meet that evening about
11 pm, when Christmas was done work. She gave him the key to her home,
Copper was supposed to meet her there. Christmas testified that she did no{
get off work until later than expected. She returned home before midnight;
Copper was upset that Christmas was late and accused her of being wit
someone else. Christmas testified that Copper punched and kicked her. ‘
threatened her with a knife and forced her to lie next to him onthe bed un
‘moming. In the moming, Copper ordered Christmas to drive him to wok
which she did. Before getting out of her car, Copper told Christmas he wat,
sory and that he would not blame her if she called the police. After
dropping him off, she went straight to the hospital. She was admitted to the
hospital with cuts to her face, bruises over her body, a knee injury, and .

 

swollen, blackened eye. Christmas testified that she has had lasting side

 

(5) Copper testified in his own defense. He admitted that he go
into a shoving match with Christmas. He admitted kicking her and “poking?

her in the eye, He denied ever punching her or threatening her with any king

3
‘of weapon. He admitted that he had told Christmas he was sorry and would’
not blame her for calling the police.

(6) The only issue Copper raises on appeal relates 10 alleged
~newly-discovered” evidence. Copper claims he has two cards from)
Christmas that “possibly suggest an ongoing love relationship” between |
them. Copper also contends that he possesses photographs, presumably of],
Christmas, which call into question her testimony regarding her injure
Copper appears to assert that the “newly discovered” evidence ‘undermines!
the credibility of Christmas’ testimony and warrants reversal of wig
convictions.

(7) On appeal, however, this Court will consider only claims that |
were presented first to the trial court for review. Copper did not raise wal
claim of newly-discovered evidence to the Superior Court in the first
instance. ‘Therefore, we decline to consider it in this appeal. Although "|
claim of newly-discovered evidence may provide the foundation for Fi

‘motion for new trial under Superior Court Criminal Rule 33, we note that,

 

* Dex SupR. CT. R.8 (2003), i

 
Copper’s “newly-discovered” evidence appears to be for impeachment,
purposes only and, thus, would not warrant a new trial.’

(8) This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded
that Copper’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably
appealable issue. We also are satisfied that Copper’s counsel has made
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly.
determined that Copper could not raise a meritorious claim in this appeal.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State's motion 16:
affirm is GRANTED. The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED:

‘The motion to withdraw is moot.

BY THE COURT:

* in onder to succeed on a claim of newly-discovered evidence, a defendant must
show: () if the jury had considered the new evidence, it probably would have changed
the result ofthe tril; i) the evidence must have been discovered after the trial and could
not have been discovered, with due diligence, before the trial; and (ii) the evidence must
not be merely cumulative or impeaching. Lloyd v. State, $34 A2d 1262, 1267 (Del
1987.