Title: Collins v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JOHNNY COLLINS, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 615, 2003 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr.A. No. IN03-02-0906  
§  Cr. ID 0301012010 
§ 
 
Submitted:  August 24, 2004 
Decided:  October 7, 2004 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 7th day of October 2004, 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) 
In October 2003, a Superior Court jury found the appellant 
Johnny Collins guilty of first degree rape.  The Superior Court sentenced 
Collins to life imprisonment.  This is Collins’ direct appeal. 
 
(2) 
Collins’ counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c). Collins’ counsel asserts that, based upon a 
complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably 
appealable issues.  By letter, Collins’ attorney informed him of the 
 
2 
provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Collins with a copy of the motion to 
withdraw and the accompanying brief.  Collins also was informed of his 
right to supplement his attorney’s presentation.  Collins has written a letter 
for the Court’s consideration.  The State has responded to the position taken 
by Collins’ counsel as well as the points raised by Collins 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.1  
 
(4) 
The record reflects the victim testified at trial that Collins, who 
was living with the victim’s mother at the time of the crime, forced her to 
engage in sexual intercourse.  She was 14 at the time.  She alleged that 
Collins threatened to harm her family if she told anyone.  She testified that 
she told no one about the rape until several months later when she became ill 
one day at school and discovered she was pregnant.  DNA testing 
                                                          
 
1Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); McCoy v. Court of Appeals of 
 
3 
established a 99.9 percent probability that Collins was the father.  Collins 
testified in his own defense and admitted having sexual intercourse with the 
victim.  
 
(5) 
The only issue Collins raises in this appeal challenges the 
ineffectiveness of his trial counsel.  This Court, however, will not consider 
such claims for the first time on appeal.2 
 
(6) 
We have reviewed the record carefully and have concluded that 
Collins’ appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Collins’ counsel has made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and has properly determined that 
Collins 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/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
                                                                                                                                                                             
Wisconsin, 486 U.S. 429, 442 (1988); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). 
2 Desmond v. State, 654 A.2d 821, 829 (Del. 1994).