Title: Haines v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
RICHARD HAINES, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 262, 2022 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID No. 2012011384 (K) 
§   
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: January 18, 2023 
   Decided: March 9, 2023 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
After consideration of the brief and motion to withdraw filed by the 
appellant’s counsel under Supreme Court Rule 26(c), the State’s response, and the 
record on appeal, it appears to the Court that:   
(1) 
On March 1, 2022, a Superior Court jury found the appellant, Richard 
Haines, guilty of one count of attempted first-degree rape, one count of attempted 
first-degree sexual abuse of a child by a person of trust, thirty-one counts of second-
degree rape, ten counts of fourth-degree rape, five counts of first-degree sexual abuse 
of a child by a person of trust, four counts of first-degree unlawful sexual contact, 
thirteen counts of second-degree unlawful sexual contact, eight count counts of 
second-degree sexual abuse of a child by a person of trust, two counts of continuous 
 
2 
sexual abuse of a child, and two counts of endangering the welfare of a child.  The 
jury found Haines not guilty of one count of first-degree rape, one count of first 
degree sexual abuse of a child by a person of trust, first-degree unlawful sexual 
contact, and one count of breach of conditions of bond.  The victims of these crimes 
were two children of Haines’s girlfriend.      
(2) 
Based on the age of one of the victims, the State applied for enhanced 
sentencing under 11 Del. C. § 4205A for three of the convictions relating to that 
victim (attempted first-degree rape, attempted first-degree sexual abuse of a child by 
a person of trust, and continuous sexual abuse of a child).  Section 4205A(2) 
provides that the Superior Court shall, upon the State’s application, sentence a 
defendant convicted of certain crimes to not less than twenty-five years up to life 
imprisonment if the victim was under the age of fourteen.  At sentencing, Haines’s 
counsel (“Counsel”) conceded that he did not have a basis to oppose the application.  
The Superior Court ultimately sentenced Haines to more than 550 years of non-
suspended Level V incarceration.  This is Haines’s direct appeal.  
(3) 
On appeal, Counsel filed a brief and a motion to withdraw under Rule 
26(c).  Counsel asserts that, based upon a complete and careful examination of the 
record, there are no arguably appealable issues.  Counsel informed Haines of the 
provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided him with a copy of the motion to withdraw 
and the accompanying brief.   
 
3 
(4) 
Counsel also informed Haines of his right to identify any points he 
wished this Court to consider on appeal.  Haines has not provided points for this 
Court’s consideration.  The State has responded to the Rule 26(c) brief and has 
moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment.   
(5) 
When reviewing a motion to withdraw and an accompanying brief 
under Rule 26(c), this Court must: (i) be satisfied that defense counsel has made a 
conscientious examination of the record and the law for arguable claims; and (ii) 
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 
(6) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded that 
Haines’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable 
issue.  We also are satisfied that Counsel has made a conscientious effort to examine 
the record and the law and has properly determined that Haines could not raise a 
meritorious claim on appeal.   
 
 
 
1 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); Leacock v. State, 690 A.2d 926, 927-28 (Del. 1996). 
 
4 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court AFFIRMED.  The motion to withdraw is moot. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice