Case Title: Hickson v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 410, 2004

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2005-08-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
-1-
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
TERRENCE HICKSON,  
 
§  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§   No. 410, 2004 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§  
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§   Court Below – Superior Court 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§   of the State of Delaware, 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§   in and for New Castle County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§   Cr.A. Nos. IN03-07-0958; 1016; 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§      1020; 1021; 1037 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§  
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§  
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§  
 
Submitted:  June 17, 2005  
   Decided:  August 8, 2005    
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 8th day of August 2005, upon consideration of the briefs on 
appeal and the record below, it appears to the Court that:1 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Terrence Hickson, was found guilty 
by a Superior Court jury of Leaving the Scene of an Accident, Reckless 
Endangering in the Second Degree, Disregarding a Police Officer’s Signal, 
Reckless Driving, and Disregarding a Red Light.  He was sentenced on the 
conviction of Leaving the Scene of an Accident to one year incarceration at 
Level V, to be suspended immediately for one year at Level II probation.  
                                          
 
1 The appellant is proceeding pro se in this direct appeal.  The Superior Court permitted 
Hickson’s trial counsel to withdraw prior to sentencing. 
 
 
-2-
On the conviction of Reckless Endangering, he was sentenced to thirty days 
incarceration at Level V.  On the conviction of Disregarding a Police 
Officer’s Signal, he was assessed a fine of $575.  On the remaining 
convictions, he was assessed fines of $100 and $75, respectively.  This is 
Hickson’s direct appeal.   
 
(2) 
The evidence at trial was that, on June 10, 2003, Ebony 
McNeill, the mother of Hickson’s daughter, was discussing child care 
arrangements with Hickson as he sat in the driver’s seat of his gold Acura 
automobile.  At some point during their conversation, a disagreement arose 
concerning Hickson’s failure to turn off his cell phone.  Hickson sped off in 
the car and struck McNeill as he did so.  Hickson did not stop his car after 
striking McNeill.   
 
(3) 
While in the hospital for her injuries, McNeill provided police 
with a report of the incident, as well as a description of Hickson’s car and 
the license plate number.  The police obtained a warrant for Hickson’s arrest 
and several officers went to his address at Staghorn Court in Bear, Delaware, 
to execute the warrant.  When Hickson failed to answer the door, the officers 
parked their vehicles in the development and waited for him to return.  
When Hickson appeared, the officers pulled his vehicle over.  The officers’ 
vehicles were marked and their lights were activated.   
 
 
-3-
 
(4) 
As one of the officers got out of his patrol car, Hickson 
accelerated his car in the direction of the officer.  Hickson then led the 
officers on a high-speed chase out of the development, through a red light at 
the intersection of Routes 7 and 40, and onto Route 40.  On the way out, 
Hickson almost collided with the patrol car that was positioned at the 
entrance to the development.  On Route 1 near Christiana, Delaware, the 
officers gave up the high-speed chase for safety reasons.  Hickson’s gold 
Acura was located some time later.  It was seized and brought to police 
headquarters for an inventory search.      
 
(5) 
In this appeal, Hickson appears to claim that there was 
insufficient evidence to support his convictions and that he should not have 
been sentenced on those convictions.2   
 
(6) 
In reviewing a claim of insufficiency of the evidence, this Court 
determines whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the 
State, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the 
crime beyond a reasonable doubt.3  In doing so, we make no distinction 
                                          
 
2 This Court does not have appellate jurisdiction over Hickson’s convictions of Reckless 
Endangering, Reckless Driving and Disregarding a Red Light, since none of them 
involves a sentence of imprisonment in excess of one month or a fine in excess of $100, 
as required by Article IV, § 11(1) (b) of the Delaware Constitution.  Marker v. State, 450 
A.2d 397, 398 (Del. 1982).   
3 Barnett v. State, 691 A.2d 614, 618 (Del. 1997). 
 
 
-4-
between direct and circumstantial evidence.4  Moreover, it is for the jury to 
weigh the relative credibility of the witnesses and reconcile any conflicting 
testimony.5  
  
 
(7) 
The evidence adduced at trial clearly was sufficient to support 
Hickson’s convictions of both Leaving the Scene of an Accident6 and 
Disregarding a Police Officer’s Signal.7  Moreover, Hickson has offered no 
authority in support of his claim that he should not have received sentences 
on those convictions, as authorized by statute.8   
 
(8) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Hickson’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issues. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
                                          
 
4 Skinner v. State, 575 A.2d 1108, 1121 (Del. 1990). 
5 Chao v. State, 604 A.2d 1351, 1363 (Del. 1992). 
6 Del. Code Ann. tit. 21, § 4202(a) (1995). 
7 Del. Code Ann. tit. 21, § 4103(b) (1995). 
8 Del. Code Ann. tit. 21, §§ 4202(b) and 4103(b) (1995).