Title: Wright v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DEVIN WRIGHT,  
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 40, 2009 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below—Superior Court 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware in and 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
for New Castle County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
Cr. ID No. 0802030856 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: June 11, 2009 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
September 10, 2009 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices.  
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 10th day of September 2009, 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 March 2008, the appellant, Devin Wright, was indicted for 
drug and drug-related offenses, lewdness, and loitering.  Wright pled not 
guilty to the charges, and a Superior Court jury trial was scheduled. 
 
 
(2) 
On June 17, 2008, Wright appeared in court for jury selection.  
The following morning Wright appeared again for the start of trial.  Later 
 
2
that morning, however, prior to the start of the proceedings, Wright could 
not be found.     
 
(3) 
The trial judge recessed the proceedings for ten minutes and 
asked the bailiff and defense counsel to look for Wright.  When Wright 
could not be located, the trial judge issued a capias and recessed again for 
two hours, until 1:30 p.m., to give defense counsel more time to find Wright.  
When Wright was not located by 1:45 p.m., the trial judge concluded that 
Wright had voluntarily absented himself from the proceedings and 
proceeded with the trial.  The jury convicted Wright, in absentia, of 
Possession of a Schedule II Narcotic within 1000 Feet of a School, Resisting 
Arrest, and Lewdness.   
 
(4) 
Wright turned himself in on September 6, 2008.  At sentencing 
on January 23, 2009, the Superior Court declared Wright an habitual 
offender and sentenced him to a total of two years incarceration at Level V 
followed by decreasing levels of probation.  This appeal followed. 
 
(5) 
On appeal, Wright’s defense counsel (“Counsel”) has filed a 
brief and a motion to withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Counsel asserts that, 
based upon a careful and complete examination of the record, there are no 
arguably appealable issues.  Counsel states that he provided Wright with a 
copy of the motion to withdraw, the accompanying brief and appendix and 
 
3
advised Wright that he had a right to supplement Counsel’s presentation.  
Wright submitted four points for this Court’s consideration.  The State has 
responded to the position taken by Counsel as well as the issues raised by 
Wright and has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment. 
 
(6) 
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.  First, this Court must be satisfied that defense 
counsel has made a conscientious examination of the record and the law for 
arguable claims.1  Second, this Court must conduct its own review of the 
record and determine whether the appeal is totally devoid of at least 
arguably appealable issues, and that the appeal can be decided without an 
adversary presentation.2 
 
(7) 
Wright raises two issues challenging the sufficiency of the 
State’s evidence.  In reviewing an insufficient evidence claim, the Court, 
after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, must 
“inquire as to whether any rational trier of fact could have found that guilt 
was established.”3  
                                          
 
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). 
2 Id. 
3 Skinner v. State, 575 A.2d 1108, 1121 (Del. 1990).   
 
4
 
(8) 
The evidence at trial established that Wright fled from two 
Wilmington police officers after he was spotted urinating on a building in 
the 2800 block of Bowers Street in Wilmington.  The building was located 
632 feet from the property of Eastside Charter School and 875 from the 
school building.  When Wright was running from the police officers, he ran 
behind a parked car where he paused briefly and lowered his hands below 
his waist. Wright then raised his hands, ran out from behind the car, and 
continued running from the police officers.  One of the police officers 
shouted a warning to Wright to stop or he would be shot with a taser gun.  
When Wright ignored that command, the officer shot Wright with a taser 
gun and took him into custody.  Immediately after apprehending Wright, the 
police officers, with Wright in tow, returned to the parked car where Wright 
had paused and dropped his hands.  There, on the ground, they found a bag 
of marijuana and a bag of crack cocaine. 
 
(9) 
The evidence presented by the State in this case was sufficient 
to support the jury’s verdict that Wright was guilty of Possession of a 
Schedule II Narcotic within 1000 Feet of a School, Resisting Arrest, and 
Lewdness.  Wright’s claim of insufficient evidence is without merit.     
 
 
(10) Wright claims that the prosecutor misled the jury when he 
described Wright during opening summation and closing argument as having 
 
5
“ducked behind” a parked car when fleeing from the police officers.  Wright 
did not object to the prosecutor’s alleged misstatements.  As a result, the 
statements will be reviewed for plain error.4   
 
 
(11) Wright is correct that the prosecutor, more than once during his 
opening summation, told the jury that the evidence would show that Wright 
“ducked behind” a parked car when he was running from the police.5  
During closing argument, however, the prosecutor described Wright as 
having “step[ped] behind th[e] car” and “st[ood] propped down.”6   
 
(12) Having reviewed the record, the Court concludes that the 
prosecutor’s descriptions of Wright as having “ducked behind” and 
“step[ped] behind” the parked car where he “st[ood] propped down” were 
fair characterizations of the evidence.  The thrust of the police officers’ trial 
testimony was that Wright ran behind a parked car where he paused briefly 
and lowered his hands out of sight. 
 
 
(13) Wright claims that the trial judge conducted an inadequate 
investigation before concluding that Wright had voluntarily absented himself 
from the trial.  Wright’s claim is not supported by the record.   
                                          
 
4 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 8.  See Czech v. State, 945 A.2d 1088, 1098 (Del.2008) (discussing 
plain error review of alleged prosecutorial misconduct). 
5 Trial Tr. at 31, 32 (June 18, 2008). 
6 Trial Tr. at 118 (June 18, 2008). 
 
6
 
(14) Once it was determined that Wright was not present in court, 
the trial judge made several attempts to locate him.  Only when those efforts 
failed did the trial judge determine that Wright’s absence was voluntary and 
allow the trial to continue.7    
 
 
(15) This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Wright’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 Wright 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/ Jack B. Jacobs  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
        Justice 
                                          
 
7 See, e.g., Walls v. State, 850 A.2d 287, 290 (Del. 2004) (concluding that trial judge’s 
efforts to locate defendant were reasonable).