Title: Dale v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JESSIE A. DALE, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 329, 2003 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr.A. Nos. IN02-01-0048 through 
§  -0050 
§  Cr. ID 0112015629 
 
Submitted: October 28, 2003 
  Decided: November 12, 2003 
 
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 12th day of November 2003, 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) 
A Superior Court jury convicted the defendant-appellant, Jessie Dale, 
of possession of heroin, maintaining a vehicle for keeping a controlled substance, 
and conspiracy.  The Superior Court sentenced Dale to a total period of five years 
at Level V incarceration, to be suspended after three years for two years at Level 
III probation.  This is Dale’s direct appeal. 
(2) 
Dale's counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw 
pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Dale's counsel asserts that, based upon a complete and 
 
 
-2- 
careful examination of the record, there are no arguable issues.  By letter, Dale's 
attorney informed him of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Dale with a 
copy of the motion to withdraw and accompanying brief.  Dale also was informed 
of his right to supplement his attorney's presentation.  Dale has not raised any 
issues for this Court's consideration.  The State has responded to the position taken 
by Dale's counsel and has moved to affirm the Superior Court's decision. 
(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.* 
(4) 
The record in this case reflects that the only testimony at trial was 
from three witnesses presented by the State.  Two police detectives testified that 
Dale was spotted driving a van.  Dale’s codefendant, Brian Broomer, was in the 
passenger seat.  The detectives were aware that Dale did not have a license and that 
there was an outstanding capias warrant for him in the Court of Common Pleas.  
                                                 
*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- 
When the officers stopped the vehicle, they saw thirteen small baggies on the 
driver’s side floor containing a substance that appeared to be heroin.  A subsequent 
search of the vehicle turned up over one hundred additional baggies with the same 
substance.  A medical examiner testified at trial that the substance in the baggies 
was heroin.  Dale did not testify or present any other witnesses.  Dale’s defense 
was that the State had failed to prove that Dale possessed drugs or knew drugs 
were in the vehicle.  The jury did not find Dale guilty of possession with intent to 
deliver but did find him guilty of the lesser-included offense of simple possession, 
as well as guilty of conspiracy and maintaining a vehicle. 
(5) 
After a careful review of the record, the Court has concluded that 
Dale’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable issue.  
We also are satisfied that Dale's counsel has made a conscientious effort to 
examine the record and the law and has properly determined that Dale 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/ E. Norman Veasey 
Chief Justice