Case Title: DeJesus v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 213, 2004

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2005-01-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
CHRISTIAN DEJESUS, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 213, 2004 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr.A. Nos. IN03-03-1089 thru 
§  -1095 and IN03-04-0614 and -0615 
§  Cr. ID 0303004601 
§ 
 
Submitted: October 14, 2004 
  Decided: January 10, 2005 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 10th day of January, 2005, upon consideration of the appellant's 
Supreme Court Rule 26(c) brief, his attorney's motion to withdraw, and the 
State's response thereto, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Christian DeJesus, was convicted by a 
Superior Court jury of three counts of aggravated menacing, four counts of 
possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, one count of first 
degree burglary, and one count of first degree unlawful imprisonment.  The 
Superior Court sentenced DeJesus to twelve years at Level V incarceration 
followed by probation.  This is DeJesus’s direct appeal. 
 
 
-2- 
(2) 
DeJesus's counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  DeJesus's counsel asserts that, based upon 
a complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably 
appealable issues.  By letter, DeJesus's attorney informed him of the 
provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided DeJesus with a copy of the motion to 
withdraw and the accompanying brief.  DeJesus also was informed of his 
right to supplement his attorney's presentation.  DeJesus has raised two 
issues for this Court's consideration.  The State has responded to the position 
taken by DeJesus's counsel, as well as the points raised by DeJesus, and has 
moved to affirm the Superior Court's judgment. 
(3) 
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) this Court must be satisfied that defense counsel 
has made a conscientious examination of the record and the law for arguable 
claims; and (b) this 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.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). 
 
 
-3- 
(4) 
DeJesus raises two points for the Court’s consideration.  First, 
he contends that the Superior Court erred by not providing him with a 
translator at trial.  Second, DeJesus argues that testimony from two of the 
State’s witnesses was conflicting and, therefore, not credible. 
 
(5) 
With respect to the first contention, the record reflects that 
DeJesus made a motion on the day of trial requesting the assistance of an 
interpreter.  The Superior Court ruled that DeJesus understood and could 
communicate in English adequately in order to go forward without an 
interpreter.  Nonetheless, the Court postponed the start of trial to see if an 
interpreter was available to assist.  When no interpreter was available, the 
trial went forward as scheduled.  The record reflects that DeJesus testified on 
the second day of trial and did so without the assistance of an interpreter. 
 
(6) 
The decision to use an interpreter is within the trial court’s 
discretion.2  In this case, the Superior Court found that DeJesus adequately 
understood and spoke English.  Although DeJesus expressed a concern prior 
to testifying that the jury might not be able to understand his English, the 
transcript of his testimony underscores DeJesus’s ability to speak and 
understand English.  Indeed, DeJesus does not assert that he was unable to 
                                                 
2 Liu v. State, 628 A.2d 1376, 1384 (Del. 1993). 
 
 
-4- 
understand any evidence presented against him or that, without an 
interpreter, he was unable to present particular testimony on his own behalf.  
Accordingly, under these circumstances, we find no error or abuse of 
discretion in the Superior Court’s decision to go forward without an 
interpreter. 
(7) 
DeJesus next asserts that the testimony of two of the State’s 
witnesses was conflicting and, therefore, not credible.  It is well-settled, 
however, that the jury is the sole fact-finder with responsibility for 
determining the witnesses’ credibility, for resolving conflicts in the 
testimony, and for drawing any inferences from the proven facts.3  The 
evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict in this 
case.  We therefore find no merit to DeJesus’s second point.  
(8) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that DeJesus’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that DeJesus's counsel has made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly 
determined that DeJesus could not raise a meritorious claim in this appeal. 
                                                 
3 Chao v. State, 604 A.2d 1351, 1363 (Del. 1992). 
 
 
-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/ Carolyn Berger 
Justice