Title: Norwood v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
TYRONE NORWOOD,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 618, 2005 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0405006248 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: July 5, 2006 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: August 1, 2006 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 1st day of August 2006, 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 September 2005, the defendant-appellant, Tyrone Norwood, 
pleaded guilty to Murder in the Second Degree as a lesser-included offense 
of Murder in the First Degree, Possession of a Firearm During the 
Commission of a Felony and Possession of a Deadly Weapon by a Person 
Prohibited.  On the murder conviction, Norwood was sentenced to 35 years 
of Level V incarceration, to be suspended after 25 years for probation.  On 
the first weapon conviction, he was sentenced to 10 years of Level V 
 
2
incarceration.  On the second weapon conviction, he was sentenced to 4 
years of Level V incarceration, to be suspended after 2 years for probation.1  
This is Norwood’s direct appeal.   
 
(2) 
Norwood’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 and 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) 
Norwood’s counsel asserts that, based upon a careful and 
complete examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable issues.  
By letter, Norwood’s counsel informed Norwood of the provisions of Rule 
26(c) and provided him with a copy of the motion to withdraw, the 
accompanying brief and the complete hearing transcript.  Norwood also was 
informed of his right to supplement his attorney’s presentation.  Norwood 
                                                 
1 On May 18, 2006, the Superior Court modified Norwood’s sentence to provide a 
substance abuse evaluation by TASC and participation in the Greentree program.  The 
rest of Norwood’s sentence remained the same. 
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
responded with a brief that raises five issues for this Court’s consideration.  
The State has responded to the position taken by Norwood’s counsel as well 
as the issues raised by Norwood and has moved to affirm the Superior 
Court’s judgment. 
 
(4) 
Norwood raises five issues for this Court’s consideration.  He 
claims that the Superior Court erred and abused its discretion during 
sentencing by: a) exhibiting a closed mind; b) failing to consider the 
presentence report; c) denying him access to the presentence report; d) 
failing to afford him a chance to rebut the presentence report; and e) failing 
to articulate the aggravating circumstances that justified departing from the 
sentencing guidelines. 
 
(5) 
Norwood’s first claim is that the sentencing judge exhibited a 
closed mind when imposing sentence.  When there is no claim that a 
sentence exceeds the statutory limits, this Court considers only whether the 
sentence is based on a false factual predicate, is impermissible, lacks 
minimal reliability, or exhibits judicial vindictiveness, bias or a closed 
mind.3  A judge imposes a sentence with a closed mind when the sentence is 
                                                 
3 Weston v. State, 832 A.2d 742, 746 (Del. 2003). 
 
4
based on a preconceived bias without consideration of the nature of the 
offense or the character of the defendant.4   
 
(6) 
We have carefully reviewed the sentencing transcript in this 
case.  It reflects that defense counsel was afforded an extended period of 
time to present Norwood’s position on sentencing, Norwood himself was 
permitted to speak on his own behalf and the judge carefully weighed the 
nature of the offense, the character of the defendant, and the aggravating and 
mitigating factors in the case.  There is nothing in the record that supports 
the conclusion that the judge had a preconceived bias.  We, therefore, find 
Norwood’s first claim to be without merit.        
 
(7) 
Norwood’s next three claims involve the sentencing judge’s use 
of the presentence report.  Norwood argues that the judge failed to consider 
the presentence report, denied him access to the presentence report, and 
denied him an opportunity to rebut the presentence report.  The record does 
not support Norwood’s claim that the judge did not consider the presentence 
report.  Before imposing sentence, the judge said that he did not consider the 
presentence officer’s evaluation of the file, but instead relied upon his own 
evaluation.  We find that the judge properly relied upon his own judgment in 
evaluating the report.  Norwood’s arguments that he was denied access to 
                                                 
4 Id. 
 
5
the presentence report and denied an opportunity to rebut the presentence 
report also are not supported by the record.  The sentencing transcript 
reflects that Norwood’s counsel had reviewed the report prior to making his 
arguments to the judge.  We, therefore, find Norwood’s claims regarding the 
presentence report to be without merit.   
 
(8) 
Norwood’s last claim is that the sentencing judge failed to 
articulate the grounds for departing from the sentencing guidelines.  This 
claim is without factual support.  The sentencing transcript reflects that the 
judge articulated three aggravating factors---a prior criminal history, a prior 
involvement with weapons and being intoxicated during the commission of 
the crime.  We, therefore, find Norwood’s final claim to be without merit.  
 
(9) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Norwood’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Norwood’s counsel has made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and has properly determined that 
Norwood could not raise a meritorious claim in this appeal. 
 
 
 
 
 
6
 
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/ Carolyn Berger 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice