Case Title: George v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 59, 2010

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2010-10-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
MONIR GEORGE,   
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 59, 2010 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0805035299 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
Submitted:  September 2, 2010 
 
Decided:     October 13, 2010 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 13th day of October 2010, 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, Monir George, was charged with 
Murder in the First Degree, Attempted Murder in the First Degree, Reckless 
Endangering in the First Degree, and 3 counts of Possession of a Firearm 
During the Commission of a Felony.  Following a Superior Court bench 
trial, George was found guilty but mentally ill of all of the charges.1  He was 
sentenced to life in prison on the first degree murder conviction, to 15 years 
                                                 
1 Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 401(b). 
 
2 
at Level V on the attempted murder conviction, to 1 year at Level V on the 
reckless endangering conviction, and to 3 years at Level V on each weapon 
conviction.  This is George’s direct appeal. 
 
(2) 
George’s 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) 
George’s counsel asserts that, based upon a careful and 
complete examination of the record and the law, there are no arguably 
appealable issues.  By letter, George’s counsel informed George of the 
provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided him with a copy of the motion to 
withdraw, the accompanying brief and the complete transcript.  George also 
was informed of his right to supplement his attorney’s presentation.  George 
responded with a brief that raises four issues for this Court’s consideration.  
                                                 
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 
The State has responded to the position taken by George’s counsel as well as 
the issues raised by George and has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s 
judgment. 
 
(4) 
George raises four issues for this Court’s consideration.  He 
claims that a) he was deprived of his constitutional right to testify in his own 
behalf; b) his execution of the waiver of jury trial form was involuntary; c) 
one of the mental health experts attempted to bribe him for his testimony; 
and d) witness statements moved into evidence under Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, 
§3507 did not comport with the foundational requirements.   
 
(5) 
The evidence at trial was that, on May 25, 2008 at 
approximately 7:00 p.m., a fundraising event for St. Mary’s Coptic 
Orthodox Church was being held at the Christiana Hilton in Christiana, 
Delaware.  Malak Michael, a deacon and chief fundraiser for the church, was 
just finishing a speech to a group of supporters when George approached 
him and shot him.  Michael died on arrival at Christiana Hospital.  George 
also unsuccessfully attempted to shoot Reverend Mina Mina, another 
member of the church clergy. George was motivated by hatred for the 
church clergy, whom he believed were corrupt, and by hatred for Michael in 
particular, whom he blamed for his break-up with his wife.   
 
4 
 
(6) 
 Testifying at trial were witnesses to the incident, Gigi Phillips, 
Michael’s niece, George Kamel, Vaylet Mikhail, and Sylvia Makar.  At the 
time of the shooting, all four individuals had been on or near the dais where 
the victim gave his speech.  Phillips and Kamel assisted in disarming George 
after the shooting.  Carl Rone, a firearms expert, testified regarding the two 
Smith & Wesson semi-automatic weapons George brought with him to the 
hotel.  A number of witnesses testified concerning George’s pattern of 
animosity toward the church clergy and his depressed mood prior to the 
incident.  Three experts from the Delaware Psychiatric Center---Robert 
Thompson, Ph.D., a forensic psychologist, Carol Tavani, M.D., a 
psychiatrist, and Stephen Mechanick, M.D., also a psychiatrist, testified 
concerning George’s mental state at the time of the incident.  Drs. 
Thompson and Mechanick opined that George was mentally ill at the time of 
the shooting.  Dr. Tavani opined that he was insane at the time of the 
shooting.    
 
(7) 
Our review of the record in this case reflects no factual support 
for any of George’s claims.  As for his first two claims, the record reflects 
that, before trial, the trial judge carefully questioned George regarding his 
decision to waive a jury trial and that, during trial, the judge carefully 
questioned him concerning his decision not to testify in his own behalf.  The 
 
5 
record reflects that George’s decisions to waive a jury trial and to waive his 
right to testify were knowing and voluntary.  The record likewise does not 
support George’s third claim that one of the testifying mental health experts 
asked him for a bribe.  As for George’s fourth, and final, claim, the record 
reflects that two out-of-court statements were admitted into evidence under 
§3507.  In neither case is there any support for George’s claim that the 
proper foundational requirements of the statute were not met.3 
 
(8) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that George’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that George’s counsel has made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly 
determined that George 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/ Jack B. Jacobs  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
      Justice  
 
                                                 
3 Woodlin v. State, Del. Supr., No. 44, 2009, Holland, J. (July 22, 2010) (en Banc).