Title: Frederick v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
LEWIS FREDERICK, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 81, 2005 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID. 0404022324 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: June 20, 2005 
  Decided: July 25, 2005 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and BERGER, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 25th day of July 2005, 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) 
The defendant-appellant, Lewis Frederick, was convicted 
following a Superior Court bench trial of aggravated menacing, offensive 
touching, and several weapon offenses.  The Superior Court sentenced 
Frederick to a total of three years incarceration followed by a period of 
probation.  This is Frederick’s direct appeal. 
 
2
(2) 
Frederick's counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Frederick's counsel asserts that, based 
upon a complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably 
appealable issues.  By letter, Frederick's attorney informed him of the 
provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Frederick with a copy of the motion 
to withdraw and the accompanying brief.  Frederick also was informed of his 
right to supplement his attorney's presentation.  Frederick has raised two 
issues for this Court's consideration.  The State has responded to the position 
taken by Frederick's counsel, as well as the issues raised by Frederick, and 
has moved to affirm the Superior Court's judgment. 
(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) 
Frederick has raised two points for the Court’s consideration.  
First, he asserts that the razor blade he held during the crime was only three 
                                          
 
1Penson 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
inches long and could be purchased by anyone at a drug store.  Therefore, he 
argues, it legally could not be a deadly weapon. Second, Frederick asserts 
that the testimony of the victim was not credible and was insufficient to 
convict him.   
 
(5) 
We find no merit to either contention.  Contrary to Frederick’s 
first argument, Section 222(5) of Title 11 of the Delaware Code expressly 
defines “deadly weapon” to include a “razor.”2  With respect to his second 
contention, the credibility of the victim’s testimony in this case was a matter 
for the trial judge to determine, in his sole discretion.3  Frederick’s assertion 
that the victim should not have been believed is insufficient to warrant 
overturning the verdict in this case.4 
(6) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Frederick’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Frederick's counsel has made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly 
determined that Frederick could not raise a meritorious claim in this appeal. 
                                          
 
2  Cf. Taylor v. State, 679 A.2d 449, 453 (Del. 1996) (holding that even common 
household items may be “deadly weapons” depending on their usage). 
3 Pryor v. State, 453 A.2d 98, 99 (Del. 1982). 
4 See id. 
 
4
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/ Randy J. Holland 
Justice