Case Title: Coles v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 574, 2003

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2004-06-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ANGELO COLES, 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
)  No. 574, 2003 
 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
) 
 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
)  Court Below:  Superior Court 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
)  of the State of Delaware in 
v. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
)  and for New Castle County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
 
)  Cr. ID. No. 0203009087 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
) 
 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
) 
 
Submitted:  April 27, 2004 
Decided:  June 28, 2004 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices: 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 28th day of June 2004, upon consideration of the briefs of the 
parties, it appears to the Court as follows: 
1. 
Angelo Coles robbed a styling salon in Wilmington on the morning of 
March 7, 2002.  He entered the salon and demanded money from the receptionist.  
Hearing the disturbance, the salon’s proprietor, John Bonarigo, entered the 
reception area and observed Coles holding something under his sweatshirt that 
appeared to be protruding outward.  Bonarigo acknowledged that it may have 
simply been Coles finger, but testified that he believed that it was a gun.  
Nonetheless, Bonarigo refused to give Coles any money and told him to leave.  
After Coles said, “I’ll shoot you, I’ll shoot you,” and that he “mean[t] business,” 
 
2
Bonarigo reached into his pocket and threw a twenty, a ten and three dollar bills on 
the ground.  Coles picked them up and ran.  Bonarigo initially gave chase, but 
decided to “back off a little bit.”  The police apprehended Coles and recovered the 
money but found no weapon.   
2. 
Coles appeals his conviction of Robbery in the First Degree on the 
basis that insufficient evidence existed to establish that he displayed a weapon.  
Coles insists that the record does not support the finding that the victim had a 
subjective fear that Coles may have had a weapon. 
3. 
The evidence presented at trial supported the indictment for Robbery 
in the First Degree.  Coles “display[ed] what appear[ed] to be a deadly weapon”1 
during the robbery, an aggravating factor that provided an appropriate basis for 
elevating his crime to First Degree.2   This Court has interpreted that provision to 
require that a victim subjectively believe the defendant has a weapon, and that an 
assailant’s threat be accompanied by an objective manifestation of a weapon.3  We 
have also held it unnecessary that an assailant actually brandish a weapon.4   
4. 
Bonarigo’s trial testimony revealed a credible, subjective belief that 
Coles was armed during the robbery.  Coles’ demeanor, overt gestures, and 
                                                 
1 11 Del. C. § 832 (a) (2). 
2 The statute has since been amended to include the phrase “or represents by word or conduct 
that the person is in possession or control of a deadly weapon.”  11 Del. C. § 832 (a) (2) (2003 
Interim Supp.) (effective June 30, 2003)  The present offense, however, occurred in 2002. 
3 Walton v. State, 821 A.2d 871, 874 (Del. 2003) (emphasis in original); DeShields v. State, 706 
A.2d 502,507 (Del. 1998). 
4  State v. Smallwood, 346 A.2d 164, 166 (Del. 1975) (emphasis added). 
 
3
threatening statements during the robbery reasonably caused Bonarigo to believe 
that Coles had a weapon.  Coles then objectively manifested possession of a 
weapon by making the statement “I’ll shoot you, I’ll shoot you,” while keeping his 
hand under his sweatshirt and pointing something in Bonarigo’s direction. 
5. 
Accordingly, the trial judge’s legal determinations were without error 
and the factual findings sufficiently supported by the record and the result of a 
logical and orderly deductive process. 5 
NOW, THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court be, and the same hereby is, AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
5 Word v. State, 801 A.2d 927, 929 (Del. 2001).