Title: Hunt v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DARREN L. HUNT,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
           Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 66, 2013 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 1207015770 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
                                         Submitted: September 19, 2013 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: October 21, 2013 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 21st day of October 2013, 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) 
The defendant-appellant, Darren L. Hunt, was found guilty in a 
stipulated bench trial of Tier 2 Drug Dealing and Resisting Arrest.1  He was 
sentenced to 8 years of Level V incarceration, to be suspended after 30 months for 
decreasing levels of supervision on the drug conviction.  On the conviction of 
resisting arrest, he was sentenced to 1 year at Level V, to be suspended for 1 year 
at Level III probation.  This is Hunt’s direct appeal. 
                                                 
1 Hunt was acquitted of Loitering. 
 
2
 
(2) 
Hunt’s counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw 
pursuant to Rule 26(c).  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) the Court must be satisfied that defense counsel has made a 
conscientious examination of the record and the law for claims that could arguably 
support the appeal; and b) the Court must conduct its own review of the record in 
order to determine whether the appeal is so totally devoid of at least arguably 
appealable issues that it can be decided without an adversary presentation.2    
 
(3) 
Hunt’s counsel asserts that, based upon a careful and complete 
examination of the record and the law, there are no arguably appealable issues.  By 
letter, Hunt’s counsel informed Hunt of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided 
him with a copy of the motion to withdraw, the accompanying brief and the 
complete trial transcript.  Hunt was informed of his right to supplement his 
attorney’s presentation.  Hunt responded with a brief that raises one issue for this 
Court’s consideration.  The State has responded to the position taken by Hunt’s 
counsel as well as the issue raised by Hunt and has moved to affirm the Superior 
Court’s judgment. 
 
(4) 
Hunt raises one issue for this Court’s consideration.  He claims that 
his Sixth Amendment right of confrontation was violated by the admission into 
                                                 
2 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
evidence of the Medical Examiner’s report without the live testimony of the 
Medical Examiner. 
 
(5) 
The evidence at trial established that, on July 18, 2012, two officers 
with the City of Wilmington Police Department were patrolling in the 1300 block 
of West Sixth Street.  The officers heard someone yell, “Fire in the hole,” a phrase 
familiar to the officers meaning that police have been seen in the area.  The 
officers then observed a man later identified as Hunt and another man engaging in 
what they believed was a hand-to-hand drug transaction.  As the officers drove 
closer to the location of the men, Hunt jumped on a bicycle and traveled east on 
Sixth Street.   
 
(6) 
Following Hunt in their car, the officers observed him jump from his 
bicycle, place something in his pocket and run west on Sixth Street.  Additional 
officers, who had been called to the scene to assist, caught up to Hunt.  Hunt 
pushed one of them away.  Another officer subdued Hunt and placed him under 
arrest.  A search incident to Hunt’s arrest yielded 13 bags of an off-white powdery 
substance, which was later identified as 3.20 grams of heroin.  On August 13, 
2012, Hunt was indicted on charges of Tier 4 Drug Dealing, Resisting Arrest and 
Loitering. 
 
(7) 
Hunt subsequently filed a motion to suppress the drug evidence on the 
ground that the police lacked probable cause to arrest him.  On January 14, 2013, 
 
4
following a hearing, the Superior Court denied Hunt’s motion to suppress.  On 
January 15, 2013, at a stipulated bench trial in the Superior Court, the judge 
amended the indictment to change the charge of Tier 4 Drug Dealing to Tier 2 
Drug Dealing.  After hearing the evidence, the judge found Hunt guilty of Tier 2 
Drug Dealing and Resisting Arrest and acquitted him of Loitering.     
 
(8) 
The trial transcript in this case reflects that the Medical Examiner’s 
report was admitted into evidence without objection by the defense because the 
identity and weight of the drugs was not in dispute at the trial.  Hunt’s sole defense 
at trial was that there was insufficient evidence to prove that he was dealing drugs 
at the time of his arrest.  The Medical Examiner’s report had no relevance to that 
issue.  As such, Hunt’s stipulation constituted a waiver of any objection to the 
admission of the Medical Examiner’s report.3  Moreover, because the report was 
not testimonial in nature, there was no violation of Hunt’s Sixth Amendment right 
of confrontation.4  We, therefore, conclude that Hunt’s claim of error is without 
merit.   
 
(9) 
The Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded that 
Hunt’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable issue.  
                                                 
3 McDougal v. State, Del. Supr., No. 20, 2012, Holland, J. (Sept. 5, 2012) (Medical Examiner’s 
report was properly admitted into evidence without the Medical Examiner’s live testimony where 
the purpose of the report was solely to establish the weight and identity of the drugs, an issue that 
was not in dispute at trial).  
4 Martin v. State, 60 A.3d 1100, 1107-08 (2013) (citing Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 
U.S. 305, 311 (2009)).  
 
 
5
We also are satisfied that Hunt’s counsel has made a conscientious effort to 
examine the record and has properly determined that Hunt 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/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice