Title: Jefferson v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
VINCENT JEFFERSON,   
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 674, 2009 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0811013286 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: May 10, 2010 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: June 21, 2010 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 21st day of June 2010, upon consideration of the appellant’s brief 
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) 
On July 14, 2009, the defendant-appellant, Vincent Jefferson, was 
found guilty by a Superior Court jury of Possession With Intent to Deliver 
Marijuana, Maintaining a Vehicle for Keeping Controlled Substances, Driving an 
Unregistered Motor Vehicle, Display of a Fictitious Registration, and Driving 
Without Proof of Insurance.  On his first conviction, Jefferson was sentenced to 3 
years of Level V incarceration, to be suspended after 2 years for 1 year at Level IV 
Crest, with the balance of the sentence to be served at Level III probation.  On his 
 
2
second conviction, Jefferson was sentenced to 18 months at Level V.  On his three 
traffic convictions, Jefferson was assessed fines.  This is Jefferson’s direct appeal. 
 
(2) 
Jefferson’s counsel 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.1  
 
(3) 
Jefferson’s counsel asserts, based upon a careful and complete 
examination of the record and the law, that there are no arguably appealable issues.  
By letter, Jefferson’s counsel informed Jefferson 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.  Jefferson also was informed of his right to 
supplement his attorney’s presentation.  Jefferson responded by raising four points 
for this Court’s consideration.  The State has responded to the position taken by 
Jefferson’s counsel as well as the points raised by Jefferson and has moved to 
affirm the Superior Court’s judgment. 
                                                 
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). 
 
3
 
(4) 
Jefferson raises four points for this Court’s consideration, as follows:   
He asks why he was released on bail after being arrested on traffic charges and 
then later arrested on drug charges; he asks why an inventory checklist was not 
completed at the time the police searched his car; he asks why he did not see a 
chain of custody report or a toxicology report entered into evidence; and, finally, 
he asks the Court to “take a look at” two Delaware statutes relating to the 
registration of vehicles. 
 
(5) 
Our review of the record in this case reveals the following.  The 
probable cause affidavit reflects that, as of November 19, 2008, the vehicle 
inventory form had been completed and submitted.  It also reflects that, as of that 
time, the seized drugs had been tested, tagged and turned over to the police 
evidence division, as witnessed by Sergeant Rogers of the Wilmington Police 
Department.  These events were confirmed at trial by Officer Luke Nuzzi.   
 
(6) 
The evidence presented at the pretrial suppression hearing on April 
16, 2009 and later at trial on July 14, 2009 was as follows.  On November 5, 2008, 
Wilmington police officers Luke Nuzzi and Don Palmatary stopped a green 1995 
Ford Explorer being driven by Jefferson in the 200 block of Concord Avenue in 
Wilmington, Delaware.  The expiration date on the vehicle’s temporary 
Pennsylvania tag was obscured by a plastic license plate frame.  Upon closer 
inspection, the police ascertained that the registration date had expired.  When 
 
4
requested, Jefferson produced a valid driver’s license, but, according to police, did 
not produce proof of insurance or a vehicle registration.  Both at the suppression 
hearing and at trial, Jefferson insisted that he did produce proof of insurance.  
There was no dispute that Jefferson told the police that he had just purchased the 
vehicle but had not yet registered it at Motor Vehicle.  The police ran a computer 
check on the vehicle, which indicated that the vehicle had not been registered in 
Delaware or Pennsylvania.  There was no documentation showing that title to the 
vehicle had been transferred to Jefferson.    
 
(7) 
After the police had placed Jefferson in the back of the patrol car, they 
informed him that he would be charged with motor vehicle offenses and that the 
vehicle would be towed.  They then conducted an inventory search of the vehicle 
and found in the glovebox a sandwich bag containing 49 ziploc baggies of a 
substance later determined to be marijuana.  Jefferson was then arrested and given 
his Miranda warnings.  Later at the stationhouse, Jefferson was informed that a 
strip search would be conducted.  At that point, according to police, Jefferson 
pulled from his pants another sandwich bag containing an additional 21 ziploc 
baggies of a substance later determined to be marijuana.  Both at the suppression 
hearing and at trial, Jefferson denied that he had done so.     
 
(8) 
The transcript of the suppression hearing on April 16, 2009 reflects 
that the vehicle inventory form and the written departmental policy for inventory 
 
5
searches were attached to the State’s response to the motion to suppress and 
admitted into evidence.  Officer Nuzzi testified that the search of the Ford Explorer 
was conducted in accordance with police department policy for inventory searches.  
Based upon the evidence presented at the hearing, the Superior Court denied the 
motion to suppress.  The Superior Court determined that, because Jefferson’s 
vehicle could not lawfully be driven, it had to be impounded and, once the vehicle 
was impounded, an inventory of the contents of the vehicle was necessary.  As 
such, the Superior Court concluded, the drug evidence seized as a result of the 
inventory search was properly admissible at trial.     
 
(9) 
The trial transcript reflects that the seized drugs were brought to trial 
by Sergeant Thomas Looney of the Wilmington Police Department and were 
identified by Officer Nuzzi as the drugs seized during the inventory search.  
Sergeant Looney testified that, in his expert opinion, the marijuana had been 
packaged for sale and not for personal consumption.  Both at the suppression 
hearing and at the trial, Jefferson denied any knowledge of the contents of the 
glove box.   
 
(10) Jefferson’s “points” consist of three “why” questions and one request 
that this Court “take a look at” two statutes relating to the registration of vehicles.  
As such, none of Jefferson’s points either states a claim or presents an issue that is 
reviewable by this Court.  To the extent that Jefferson complains that the motion to 
 
6
suppress should have been granted,2 or that there was insufficient evidence 
presented at trial to support his convictions,3 or that the State failed to demonstrate 
an unbroken chain of custody with respect to the drug evidence,4 or that the jury 
should not have credited the police officers’ version of events,5 our careful review 
of the record in this case leads us to conclude that any such complaints are without 
merit.  
 
(11) This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded that 
Jefferson’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable 
issues.  We also are satisfied that Jefferson’s counsel has made a conscientious 
effort to examine the record and the law and has properly determined that Jefferson 
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 
 
                                                 
2 Lecates v. State, 987 A.2d 413, 416-17 (Del. 2009). 
3 Robinson v. State, 953 A.2d 169, 173 (Del. 2008). 
4 McNally v. State, 980 A.2d 364, 371-72 (Del. 2009); Del. Unif. R. Evid. 901(a). 
5 Pryor v. State, 453 A.2d 98, 100 (Del. 1982).