Case Title: Grimes v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 606, 2003

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2004-06-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
RUSSELL GRIMES,                      
           
Defendant Below- 
Appellant,   
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
     
 
 
     
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
   No. 606, 2003 
 
   Court Below---Superior Court 
   of the State of Delaware, 
   in and for New Castle County  
   Cr. A. Nos. IN02-12-1217--1219                 
                      
 
Submitted: May 3, 2004   
   Decided: June 29, 2004    
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 29th day of June 2004, 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, Russell Grimes, was found guilty by a 
Superior Court jury of two counts of Attempted Robbery in the Second Degree.  
He was sentenced to a total of 6 years incarceration at Level V, to be suspended 
after 12 months in the Greentree Program for probation.1  This is Grimes’ direct 
appeal. 
                                                 
1 Grimes also pleaded guilty to Shoplifting, for which he was sentenced to 1 year incarceration at 
Level V, to be suspended for probation. 
 
 
-2-
 
(2) 
Grimes’ 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.2 
 
(3) 
Grimes’ counsel asserts that, based upon a careful and complete 
examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable issues.  By letter, 
Grimes’ counsel informed Grimes 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.  Grimes also was informed of his right to supplement his 
attorney’s presentation.  Grimes responded with a brief that raises three issues for 
this Court’s consideration.  The State has responded to the position taken by 
Grimes’ counsel as well as the issues raised by Grimes and has moved to affirm the 
Superior Court’s judgment. 
                                                 
2 Penson 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-
 
(4) 
Grimes raises three issues for this Court’s consideration that may 
fairly be summarized as follows: a) the Superior Court erred in permitting a 
surveillance videotape to be admitted into evidence that had not previously been 
disclosed in discovery; and b) the Superior Court erred by not giving a curative 
instruction after a witness mentioned that another “similar” incident had occurred 
close to the crime scene.   
 
(5) 
The facts adduced at trial are as follows.  At about 4:30 p.m. on 
December 6, 2002, Grimes entered a convenience store at a Shell gas station on 
Kirkwood Highway, New Castle County, Delaware.  He began using profanity and 
yelling that the clerks were foreigners who should get out of “his” store.  Grimes 
went to the coffee counter and brought the pot of coffee up to the register where a 
female clerk was working.  Fearful that he would throw the pot, she helped him 
pour a cup of coffee.  Grimes demanded money from her.  Grimes then approached 
a young male clerk and again demanded money.  After the clerk refused his 
demand, Grimes threatened to hit him.  When the female clerk called the police, 
Grimes took the receiver and told the police that he was the president and that the 
police should get the foreigners out of “his” store.   
 
(6) 
 A customer named Ronald Downes witnessed Grimes threatening the 
male clerk.  Downes asked Grimes to calm down and left the store to call the 
 
 
-4-
police.  While watching the store from his car, Downes saw Grimes place his hand 
inside his sweat jacket in a manner suggesting that he had a gun and reported this 
to the police.  When Grimes left the store, Downes followed him as he walked 
towards a strip mall.  Downes observed Grimes entering a Chinese restaurant in the 
mall and reported this to the police when they arrived.  The police arrested Grimes 
as he exited the restaurant.       
 
(7) 
The prosecutor, without objection by defense counsel, played a 
surveillance videotape of the incident at the store during the testimony of Corporal 
Daniel Parks, the investigating officer in the case.  The transcript of the trial 
reflects that the prosecutor notified the judge and defense counsel at the beginning 
of the trial that the State had a copy of the videotape, that no one from the State 
had viewed the videotape because they were told it needed to be played on special 
equipment, and that the State had not originally intended to use the videotape at 
trial.   
 
(8) 
During his testimony, Corporal Parks confirmed that the store 
manager told him the videotape had to be played on special equipment and that 
was the reason no one from the State had viewed it.  Corporal Parks also stated that 
the videotape had never been removed from the evidence envelope.  Defense 
counsel cross examined Corporal Parks vigorously about the chain of custody of 
 
 
-5-
the videotape and the store manager’s statement that it had to be viewed with 
special equipment.  In his closing argument, defense counsel characterized the 
videotape as being “good evidence for the defense” in that it did not show Grimes 
displaying any threatening behavior.  However, in his closing argument, the 
prosecutor stated that the videotape showed the clerks’ alarmed expressions, 
supporting the view that Grimes was threatening them.  
 
(9) 
During his testimony, Corporal Parks stated the following during 
cross examination by defense counsel:  “During this incident, we were also 
receiving notification of a similar incident which had occurred a short distance 
away.  And that was obviously on our minds, too.”  During a recess after Corporal 
Parks’ testimony, defense counsel asked the judge to give an instruction stating 
that Grimes had nothing to do with the other incident.  While not ruling 
specifically on the request, the judge stated that he did not believe the remark was 
intended to refer to Grimes.  Defense counsel did not pursue the issue further.           
 
(10) Because Grimes’ first claim was raised for the first time in this appeal, 
it will be reviewed for plain error.3  While it appears that the State improperly 
failed to reveal the existence of the videotape to the defense prior to trial, it also 
                                                 
3 Wainwright v. State, 504 A.2d 1096, 1100 (Del. 1986) (Under the plain error standard of 
review, the error complained of must be so clearly prejudicial to substantial rights as to 
jeopardize the fairness and integrity of the trial process). 
 
 
 
-6-
appears that there was no unfair advantage as a result, since the prosecutor did not 
review the videotape prior to trial.  It further appears that both the prosecutor and 
defense counsel reviewed the videotape together for the first time during the trial 
and that, following that review, defense counsel had no objection to the videotape 
being shown to the jury.  It, finally, appears that the videotape did not clearly 
support the position of either the prosecution or the defense.  Under these 
circumstances, and in light of the strong eyewitness testimony against Grimes, we 
find no plain error on the part of the Superior Court in permitting the jury to view 
the surveillance videotape. 
 
(11)  We have reviewed carefully the trial transcript as it relates to Grimes’ 
second claim.  First, defense counsel chose not to pursue the issue of Corporal 
Parks’ remark concerning another “similar” incident after the judge stated his 
belief that the remark was not intended to implicate Grimes.  Second, the remark 
on its face does not suggest any involvement by Grimes.  Finally, an instruction by 
the judge under these circumstances may simply have highlighted the remark to the 
jury, to the detriment of Grimes.4  We, therefore, find no error or abuse of 
discretion on the part of the Superior Court in not instructing the jury regarding 
Corporal Parks’ remark. 
                                                 
4 Rhoades v. State, Del. Supr., No. 597, 2002, Steele, J. (May 16, 2003). 
 
 
-7-
 
(12) This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded that 
Grimes’ appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable 
issue.  We also are satisfied that Grimes’ counsel has made a conscientious effort 
to examine the record and has properly determined that Grimes could not raise a 
meritorious claim in this appeal.   
 
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/ Carolyn Berger 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice