Case Title: Philhower v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 283, 2016

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2016-10-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
HAROLD E. PHILHOWER, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
           Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 283, 2016 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below:  Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID 1410003902 
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:  September 7, 2016 
 
 
 
 
    Decided:  October 28, 2016 
 
Before HOLLAND, VALIHURA, and VAUGHN, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 28th day of October 2016, upon consideration of the appellant’s brief 
filed under Supreme Court Rule 26(c), his attorney’s motion to withdraw, and 
the State’s response thereto, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
In January 2016, following a four-day trial, a Superior Court jury 
convicted the defendant-appellant, Harold Philhower, of one count of Rape in 
the Third Degree (as a lesser included offense to the charge of Rape in the 
Second Degree) and three counts of Dealing in Child Pornography.  The jury 
acquitted him of four other charges.  Following a presentence investigation, the 
Superior Court sentenced Philhower on May 25, 2016 to a total period of 100 
years at Level V incarceration, to be suspended after serving eight years in 
 
2 
prison, to be followed by three years of probation supervision.  This is 
Philhower’s direct appeal. 
 
(2) 
Philhower’s counsel has 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 issues.  
By letter, counsel informed Philhower of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and 
provided him with a copy of the motion to withdraw and the accompanying brief 
and appendix.  Philhower also was informed of his right to supplement his 
attorney’s presentation.  The State has responded to counsel’s position and to 
Philhower’s argument and has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment.    
 
(3) 
The trial transcript reflects that the State introduced into evidence a 
redacted recording of Philhower’s statement to the police on October 6, 2014.  
During that statement, Philhower admitted receiving three or four nude pictures 
on his telephone from the then thirteen-year-old victim.  During the same 
interview, Philhower also confessed to engaging in one incident of oral sex with 
the victim.  After Philhower’s statement was introduced at trial through the 
testimony of the investigating officer, the victim testified that she had sent 
Philhower three nude photographs of herself at Philhower’s request.  She 
testified that, after she sent the photographs, Philhower acknowledged looking at 
them. The victim also testified about an incident during which Philhower pulled 
 
3 
down her pants and performed oral sex on her.  Philhower testified at trial and 
denied the allegations. 
 
(4) 
Philhower has raised one issue for the Court’s consideration in 
response to his counsel’s motion to withdraw.  He contends that the State failed 
to establish the corpus delicti of his four convictions, independent of 
Philhower’s own taped statement to police.  Philhower essentially contends that 
the victim’s testimony was coerced and that the State failed to present any 
competent evidence, independent of his taped statement, to support his 
convictions. 
 
(5) 
The standard and scope of review applicable to the consideration of 
defense counsel’s 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 in order to determine whether the appeal is so totally devoid of at 
least arguably appealable issues that it can be decided without an adversary 
presentation.1    
                                                 
1 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). 
 
4 
 
(6) 
“Corpus delicti” means the “body of the crime.”2  In plain terms, 
the corpus delicti rule requires the State to prove that a crime was committed by 
somebody.3  An accused’s confession to a crime without “some” independent 
proof of the corpus delicti is insufficient evidence to support a conviction.4  This 
Court has held that the victim’s identification of the defendant as the perpetrator, 
even in the absence of any physical evidence linking the defendant to the crime, 
constitutes sufficient evidence to support a defendant’s conviction of a sexual 
crime, as long as the victim’s testimony establishes every element of the offense 
charged.5  The victim’s identification of Philhower as the perpetrator in this case 
was independent proof of the corpus delicti and was sufficient to establish every 
element of the charged offenses. 
 
(7) 
To the extent Philhower contends that the victim’s testimony was 
coerced, he did not raise this argument to the Superior Court in the first 
instance.6  Contrary to his assertion, a challenge to the credibility of a witness 
goes to the weight to be accorded to that evidence by the jury, not to its 
admissibility.7 The jury is the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses 
                                                 
2 McDonald v. State, 2016 WL 4699155, *3 (Del. Sept. 7, 2016) (internal quotations omitted). 
3 Jenkins v. State, 401 A.2d 83, 86 (Del. 1979). 
4 Id. 
5 Jacobs v. State, 2015 WL 6780786, *2 (Del. Nov. 5, 2015). 
6 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 8 (2016). 
7 Taylor v. State, 76 A.3d 791, 800 (Del. 2013). 
 
5 
appearing before the trial court and is responsible for resolving any conflicts in 
the testimony.8  It was within the purview of the jury in this case to determine 
what weight to give to the victim’s testimony.  We find no merit to Philhower’s 
argument on appeal. 
 
(8) 
The Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded that 
Philhower’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Philhower’s counsel has made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and has properly determined that 
Philhower 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/ Karen L. Valihura 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
                                                 
8 McCoy v. State 112 A.3d 239, 268 (Del. 2014).