Title: Lewis v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
RICHARD LEWIS, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 108, 2007 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0604021526 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: October 31, 2007 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: December 14, 2007 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 14th day of December 2007, 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, Richard Lewis, was found guilty by a 
Superior Court jury of two counts of Robbery in the First Degree, one count 
of Attempted Robbery in the First Degree, and two counts of Possession of a 
Deadly Weapon During the Commission of a Felony.  On the robbery 
convictions, he was sentenced to a total of 8 years of Level V incarceration, 
to be suspended after 6 years for 2 years at Level III probation.  On the 
attempted robbery conviction, he was sentenced to 3 years at Level V.  On 
 
2
the weapon convictions, he was sentenced to a total of 4 years at Level V.  
This is Lewis’ direct appeal. 
 
(2) 
Lewis’ 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) 
Lewis’ counsel asserts that, based upon a careful and complete 
examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable issues.   By 
letter, Lewis’ counsel informed Lewis 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.  Lewis also was informed of his right 
to supplement his attorney’s presentation.  Lewis responded with a brief that 
raises five issues for this Court’s consideration.  The State has responded to 
                                                 
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
the position taken by Lewis’ counsel as well as the issues raised by Lewis 
and has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment. 
 
(4) 
Lewis raises five issues for this Court’s consideration.  He 
claims that a) there was insufficient evidence presented to support his first 
robbery conviction---specifically, there were no fingerprints to connect him 
with the crime and the witness testimony was not credible; b) there was no 
basis for his conviction of first degree attempted robbery; c) his second 
robbery conviction was invalid because he had no weapon; and d) his 
counsel provided ineffective assistance.   
 
(5) 
The trial transcript reflects the following.  On April 28, 2006, 
Christian Alonzo Torres, his girlfriend, his daughter, and his friend, Gustavo 
Quazada, arrived at the Admiral Club Apartments, New Castle County, 
Delaware, between 9:00 and 10:00 p.m. after shopping for cell phones.  
Torres’ girlfriend and daughter went into their apartment, but Torres and 
Quazada remained in the car.  Shortly thereafter, a man appeared outside and 
told Quazada to open his window.  When he did, the man reached in, opened 
the door and demanded money.  The man had his hand in his shirt as if he 
were hiding a weapon.  When Quazada refused to cooperate, the man 
reached in and tried to pull Quazada out of the car.  He also grabbed a steak 
knife that Torres’ girlfriend had used to open the cell phone packages and 
 
4
threatened Quazada with it.  Finally, after Torres gave him a $50 bill, the 
man left.  Following the incident, the police lifted some latent fingerprints 
from the passenger door of the vehicle.  Subsequent testing did not match 
the fingerprints with Lewis’.  Approximately two weeks after the incident, a 
New Castle County police detective showed Torres a photo array that 
included a photo of Lewis.  Torres identified Lewis as the robber.   
 
(6) 
The next night, April 29, 2006, Mario Vargas left his apartment 
at the Admiral Club Apartments at about 4:00 a.m. to go to work.  He 
walked past a man who was entering the building.  The man then turned 
around and followed Vargas outside.  He told Vargas that he had a gun and 
demanded money.  The man had his hand under his shirt, and it appeared 
that he was hiding a weapon.  Vargas turned over all his money---$2.25---to 
the robber.  Vargas’ wife then opened the window of their apartment and 
called out to Vargas.  Vargas yelled that he was being robbed and to call the 
police.  The robber fled.  Soon thereafter, a police officer brought a suspect 
to Vargas.  Vargas told the officer that the man was not the robber.  Another 
police officer then brought Lewis to Vargas.  Lewis had been detained by 
the officer after being observed entering and exiting another building in the 
complex.  Vargas identified Lewis as the robber with 100% certainty.  
 
5
 
(7) 
Lewis’ first claim is that there was insufficient evidence 
presented to support his first robbery conviction.  In reviewing a claim of 
insufficiency of the evidence, the relevant inquiry is 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.2  At trial, Torres testified that Lewis was the man who robbed him.  
The State was not required to present fingerprint evidence in order to obtain 
a conviction.  While Lewis argues that Torres was not credible, credibility is 
an issue to be determined by the jury.3  In this case, the jury believed Torres’ 
testimony.  We, therefore, conclude that Lewis’ first claim is without merit. 
 
(8) 
Lewis’ second claim is that there was no basis for his 
conviction of first-degree attempted robbery.  Delaware law provides that a 
defendant may be convicted of multiple robberies occurring during a single 
incident when there are multiple victims.4  At trial, Torres testified that, 
while only he turned over his money, both he and Quazada were threatened 
by the robber.  As such, there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to 
support both the robbery and the attempted robbery convictions.5  To the 
extent that Lewis argues that he could not be convicted of the attempted 
                                                 
2 Hardin v. State, 844 A.2d 982, 990 (Del. 2004). 
3 Chao v. State, 604 A.2d 1351, 1363 (Del. 1992). 
4 Harrigan v. State, 447 A.2d 1191, 1192 (Del. 1982). 
5 Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, §§ 531 and 832(a) (2). 
 
6
robbery of Quazada because only Torres testified, that argument is 
unavailing.  Torres was an eyewitness to the event and was able to testify to 
all the elements of the attempted robbery of Quazada.  We, therefore, 
conclude that Lewis’ second claim is without merit. 
 
(9) 
Lewis’ third claim is that his conviction of first-degree robbery 
in the second incident is invalid because there was no weapon.  At trial, 
however, Vargas testified that Lewis approached him, told him he had a gun, 
put his hand under his shirt as if he had a weapon, and demanded money.  
That testimony was more than sufficient to support Lewis’ conviction of 
first-degree robbery.6  We, therefore, conclude that Lewis’ third claim is 
without merit. 
 
(10) Lewis’ fourth, and final, claim is that his attorney provided 
ineffective assistance.  Ineffective assistance of counsel claims may not be 
considered for the first time on direct appeal.7  Because Lewis’ claim was 
not decided by the Superior Court in the first instance, we decline to address 
it in this appeal.  Lewis’ fourth claim is, thus, also unavailing. 
 
(11)   This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has 
concluded that Lewis’ appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any 
arguably appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Lewis’ counsel has 
                                                 
6 DeShields v. State, 706 A.2d 502, 507 (Del. 1998); Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 832(a) (2). 
7 Desmond v. State, 654 A.2d 821, 829 (Del. 1994). 
 
7
made a conscientious effort to examine the record and has properly 
determined that Lewis 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/Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice