Case Title: Fisher v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 135, 2005

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2005-10-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DONALD FISHER, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 135, 2005 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr.A. Nos. VN03-10-2074;  
§                           2082; 2083   
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: August 12, 2005 
 
 
 
 
Decided:    October 18, 2005 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 18th day of October 2005, 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, Donald Fisher, was found to have 
committed a violation of probation (“VOP”) in connection with his 
sentences for convictions of Felony Theft and Forgery in the Second Degree.  
He was sentenced to a total of 5 years incarceration at Level V, to be 
suspended after 2 years for probation.  This is Fisher’s direct appeal from his 
probationary sentences. 
 
2
 
(2) 
Fisher’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.1 
 
(3) 
Fisher’s counsel asserts that, based upon a careful and complete 
examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable issues.  By 
letter, Fisher’s counsel informed Fisher 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.  Fisher also was informed of his right 
to supplement his attorney’s presentation.  Fisher responded with a brief that 
raises several issues for this Court’s consideration.  The State has responded 
to the position taken by Fisher’s counsel as well as the issues raised by 
Fisher and has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment. 
                                                 
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) 
Fisher raises several issues for this Court’s consideration that 
may fairly be summarized as follows: a) there was insufficient evidence 
presented at the VOP hearing to support his VOP sentences; b) his VOP 
sentences are illegal because they violate the SENTAC2 guidelines; and c) 
his counsel provided ineffective assistance.3 
 
(5) 
In July 2004, Fisher pleaded guilty to one count of Felony Theft 
and two counts of Forgery in the Second Degree.  On the theft conviction, he 
was sentenced to 3 years incarceration at Level V, suspended immediately 
for 1 year at Level III probation.  On each of the forgery convictions, he was 
sentenced to 1 year incarceration at Level V, suspended immediately for 1 
year at Level II probation.   In addition, he was ordered to obtain gainful 
employment, undergo an assessment by Gamblers’ Anonymous, follow any 
counseling recommendations, refrain from gambling, and complete his 
schooling in Philadelphia.   
 
(6) 
During January 2005, while on probation, Fisher allegedly 
deposited approximately seven fraudulent checks at Citizens Bank in 
University Plaza in Newark, Delaware, and subsequently made a number of 
                                                 
2 SENTAC stands for Sentencing Accountability Commission. 
3 We decline to address this claim in Fisher’s direct appeal of his VOP sentences.  Horne 
v. State, 2005 WL 1949967 (Del. 2005). 
 
4
withdrawals from the bank.  As a result of the fraudulent transactions, 
Citizens Bank allegedly lost $3,587.42.   
 
(7) 
On March 24, 2005, a contested VOP hearing was held in the 
Superior Court.  Trooper Daniel Grassi of the Delaware State Police testified 
that, on January 20, 2005, he was contacted by the branch manager of the 
Citizens Bank at University Plaza in Newark, Delaware.  He was asked to 
investigate a customer of Citizens Bank who allegedly passed a number of 
bad checks between the dates of January 4, 2005 and January 20, 2005.  His 
investigation revealed that all of the checks had been returned because no 
accounts existed for the checks and that the customer had withdrawn 
$3,587.42.  Trooper Grassi testified that Fisher was well known to bank 
personnel and that surveillance cameras at the bank yielded photographs that 
showed Fisher making the fraudulent deposits and withdrawals.   
 
(8) 
Fisher’s probation officer testified that Fisher had missed 
several appointments with him, was not attending school and had not 
enrolled in Gamblers’ Anonymous, as required by his original sentencing 
order.  Fisher himself admitted that he had not reported to his probation 
officer since December 2004.   
 
(9) 
 Fisher claims that there was insufficient evidence presented at 
the VOP hearing to support the finding that he had committed a VOP.  We 
 
5
have reviewed the transcript of the VOP hearing and find Fisher’s claim to 
be without merit.  There was ample testimony, including that of Fisher 
himself, supporting the State’s allegations that Fisher had not complied with 
the conditions of his sentencing order and that he had committed new 
offenses.   
 
(10) Fisher also claims that his sentences are illegal because they 
violate the SENTAC guidelines.  It is well-settled that the Superior Court’s 
deviation from the non-binding SENTAC guidelines does not, in and of 
itself, constitute a valid basis for appealing a sentence.4  Absent any 
evidence that Fisher’s sentences exceeded the statutory limits, we find this 
claim to be without merit.5     
 
(11) This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Fisher’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Fisher’s counsel has made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and has properly determined that 
Fisher could not raise a meritorious claim in this appeal. 
                                                 
4 Mayes v. State, 604 A.2d 839, 846 (Del. 1992). 
5 Id. at 842-43. 
 
6
 
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