Title: Washington v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
MICHAEL WASHINGTON,  
§ 
§ 
No.  110, 2011 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court BelowBSuperior Court    
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware in   
 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
and for New Castle County  
§ 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
Cr. ID No. 0909018475A  
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Submitted: July 15, 2011 
Decided: 
October 14, 2011 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and JACOBS, Justices.  
 
O R D E R 
 
This 14th day of October 2011, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
In November 2010, a Superior Court jury convicted the appellant, 
Michael Washington, of two counts each of Manslaughter and Possession of a 
Firearm During the Commission of a Felony in the September 1, 2008 fatal 
shooting of Leighton Francis and Amin Guy in Wilmington, Delaware.  For those 
convictions, plus a third weapon conviction, Washington was sentenced in 
February 2011 to a total of eighty-six years at Level V suspended after sixty-four 
years for descending levels of probation.1  This is Washington’s direct appeal. 
                                            
1 The record reflects that a charge of Possession of a Firearm by a Person Prohibited was severed 
prior to verdict.  Washington was subsequently found guilty of that charge by the trial judge. 
2 
 
(2) 
On appeal, Washington’s defense counsel (“Counsel”) has filed a 
brief and a motion to withdraw pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 26(c) (“Rule 
26(c)”) asserting that there are no arguably appealable issues.2  Washington, 
through Counsel, has submitted two issues for the Court’s consideration.  The State 
has responded to Washington’s issues and has moved to affirm the Superior 
Court’s judgment. 
(3) 
When reviewing a motion to withdraw and an accompanying brief 
under Rule 26(c), this Court must be satisfied that the defendant’s counsel has 
made a conscientious examination of the record and the law for arguable claims.3  
The Court must also 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.4 
(4) 
It appears from the record that Francis and Guy were found shot to 
death on September 1, 2008 (hereinafter “the shooting”) in the front seat of a 
bullet-ridden black Lexus (hereinafter “the vehicle”) in the 500 block of E. 10th 
Street.  The first police officer to arrive at the scene found the vehicle stopped in 
the middle of traffic, still in gear and wedged against another car. 
(5) 
Detective John Ciritella of the Wilmington Police Department 
(hereinafter “Ciritella”) was assigned to investigate the shooting.  As the 
                                            
2 See Del. Supr. Ct. R. 26(c) (governing appeals without merit). 
3 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).  
4 Id. 
3 
 
investigation unfolded, Ciritella theorized that the shooting occurred from inside 
the vehicle as it was leaving the 700 block of E. 10th Street and that the vehicle 
continued moving until it came to a stop in the 500 block. 
(6) 
Ciritella recovered a significant number of bullets, bullet fragments 
and/or shell casings, from the interior of the vehicle, the 700 block of E. 10th Street, 
and the victims’ bodies following the medical examiner’s autopsies.  Ciritella did 
not, however, recover a weapon that was used in the shooting. 
(7) 
At trial, Ciritella testified that initially and for several months after the 
shooting, he could not develop a lead on a suspect.  Finally, however, in April 
2009, Ciritella was advised that an inmate in federal custody, Christopher 
Waterman, was interested in disclosing information about the shooting that he had 
allegedly heard from another inmate.  The other inmate turned out to be 
Washington.  Similarly, in May 2009 and December 2009, Ciritella learned that 
inmates William Coleman and Isaiah Fields also wanted to disclose information 
that another inmate, again Washington, purportedly told each of them about the 
shooting. 
(8) 
Ciritella conducted individual one-on-one interviews with Waterman, 
Coleman and Fields.  As a result of those interviews, Ciritella learned that between 
the fall of 2008 and the spring of 2009, Washington allegedly individually told 
Waterman, Coleman and Fields at different times that he was either in the vehicle 
during the shooting or that he was the shooter, and that the weapon involved in the 
4 
 
shooting was a “Mac 10,” which Ciritella knew was a candidate weapon.  Ciritella 
also learned from Waterman, Coleman and Fields that the shooting was possibly 
the result of a botched robbery or a dispute over a drug deal, and that the gun had 
discharged unexpectedly in the vehicle. 
(9) 
Ciritella learned additional information from Coleman about 
Washington’s possible involvement in the shooting, namely that Washington was 
worried that a resident of the 700 block of E. 10th Street, April Gardner, had 
witnessed the shooting.  Moreover, Fields told Ciritella that he was with 
Washington in June or July 2008 at 930 Spruce Street, a drug hangout, when the 
“Mac 10” Washington was holding suddenly went off and sprayed gunfire. 
(10) As a result of his interview with Fields, Ciritella obtained a search 
warrant for 930 Spruce Street and in the ensuing search found a number of bullet 
holes in the floor and walls from which he recovered three bullets.  From his 
interview with Coleman, Ciritella was able to locate Gardner at her 729 E. 10th 
Street home.  Gardner told Ciritella that she witnessed the events leading to the 
shooting on September 1, 2008 from the front steps of her home. 
(11) At trial, Gardner testified that, prior to the shooting, she was outside 
sitting on her front steps watching her grandson ride his bicycle when she observed 
Washington and another male – later identified as Guy – walking down 10th Street.  
Gardner told the jury that she knew Washington because he had grown up in the 
neighborhood and had gone to school with her children. 
5 
 
(12) Gardner testified that she observed Washington and his companion 
approach another man who was sitting in the driver’s seat of a vehicle that was 
parked directly in front of her house.  According to Gardner, after the three men 
conversed briefly, Guy got into the right front passenger seat of the vehicle and 
Washington got into the right rear passenger seat. 
(13) Gardner testified that moments after the two men entered the vehicle 
the vehicle’s windows “erupted.”  Shocked by the explosion, Gardner said, she 
immediately “grabbed [her] grandson” and ran to her daughter’s house around the 
corner on Bennett Street where she remained for several hours before returning 
home.  Gardner testified that as she ran from the scene, she could feel shards of 
glass getting caught in her hair, and that she had “glass all in [her] hair” when she 
reached her daughter’s house.  Gardner further testified that Washington came to 
her home later that evening “to apologize,” but that she refused to speak to him. 
(14) On September 28, 2009, Washington was charged with two counts of 
Murder in the First Degree, two counts of Possession of a Firearm During the 
Commission of a Felony and one count of Possession of a Firearm by a Person 
Prohibited.  Washington went to trial on those charges on October 26, 2010. 
(15) At trial, the State’s ballistics expert, Delaware State Police Firearms 
Examiner Carl Rone (hereinafter “Rone”), opined that the strafing of the vehicle’s 
interior was the result of a semi-automatic or automatic weapon discharging more 
than thirty rounds inside the vehicle from the area of the right rear passenger seat.  
6 
 
Rone further opined that the sixteen bullets and thirty spent shell casings he 
examined, which were recovered from the vehicle, the victims’ bodies, and 930 
Spruce Street, all came from the same semi-automatic or automatic weapon. 
(16) Washington testified at trial that he visited “Miss April” later in the 
evening on September 1, 2008, because he was sorry to hear that Leighton and 
Francis had been shot in front of her house, and that she had witnessed the 
shooting.  Washington also testified that, a few days prior to the shooting, he had a 
conversation with Leighton and Guy, while in the vehicle, about a gun his cousin 
wanted to sell.  According to Washington, the gun he was helping his cousin sell 
“hold[s] 30 rounds” and was “the same gun that went off in the house [on] 930 
Spruce Street.”  Washington denied any involvement in the shooting, however, and 
he testified that at the time of the shooting he was “cooking up some drugs” at 930 
Spruce Street. 
(17) On November 11, 2010, at the conclusion of the nine-day trial, the 
jury convicted Washington of two counts of Manslaughter as lesser-included 
offenses of Murder in the First Degree and two counts of Possession of a Firearm 
During the Commission of a Felony.  The jury acquitted Washington of Attempted 
Robbery in the First Degree. 
(18) In his issues raised for this Court’s consideration, Washington claims 
that he is entitled to a new trial on the basis of insufficient evidence because of two 
misleading statements that were made at trial.  Because Washington’s claims of 
7 
 
error could have been raised at trial but were not, this Court has considered the 
claims for plain error.5 
(19) Under the plain error standard of review, the error 
complained of must be so clearly prejudicial to 
substantial rights as to jeopardize the fairness and 
integrity of the trial process.  Furthermore, the doctrine of 
plain error is limited to material defects which are 
apparent on the face of the record; which are basic, 
serious and fundamental in their character, and which 
clearly deprive an accused of a substantial right, or which 
clearly show manifest injustice.6 
 
(20) Washington’s first claim is that the prosecutor misled the jury in her 
opening statement when she referred to a cell phone call between Francis and Guy 
that was not substantiated at trial.  The trial transcript reflects the following 
relevant portion from the prosecutor’s opening statement:   
Detective Ciritella talks to some people on the 
street, and what he finds out is that Amin Guy, who lives 
at 707 East 10th Street, and got a phone call, got a phone 
call, and he walks down the street. 
The phone records will show that Leighton 
[Francis] called Guy before 8:30 p.m. September 1st, 
2008.  Amin left that house, but never came back.7 
 
(21) Washington is correct that the prosecutor made a reference in her 
opening statement to a cell phone call that was never proven at trial. Washington is 
incorrect, however, that the prosecutor’s misstatement was prejudicial.8  Rather, 
                                            
5 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 8. 
6 Wainwright v. State, 504 A.2d 1096, 1100 (Del. 1986) (citations omitted). 
7 Trial tr. at 21 (Oct. 26, 2010). 
8 See Dailey v. State, 956 A.2d 1191, 1195 (Del. 2008) (“Only comments that prejudicially affect 
the ‘substantial rights’ of the accused compromise the integrity of the verdict and the fairness of 
8 
 
having reviewed the trial transcript, the Court concludes that the prosecutor’s 
reference to a cell phone conversation between Francis and Guy immediately 
before the shooting was of no apparent consequence to the case. 
(22) Washington’s second claim is that Rone testified at trial, contrary to a 
written report, that two bullet fragments found in the 700 block of E. 10th Street 
came from the same weapon as the other bullets recovered in the investigation.  
According to Washington, as a result of the alleged error in Rone’s testimony, 
Rone’s expert opinion was misleading and baseless. 
(23) Washington’s second claim is without merit.  The record reflects that 
Rone testified that sixteen intact bullets and thirty spent shell casings were 
recovered from the vehicle, the victims’ bodies, and 930 Spruce Street.  It does not 
appear that Rone testified about bullet fragments that were recovered from the 700 
block of E. 10th Street. 
(24) Finally, it does not appear, as Washington seems to suggest, that the 
unproven cell phone call and/or the presence or absence of expert testimony on two 
bullet fragments had an impact on the sufficiency of the evidence.  On a 
sufficiency of evidence claim, the relevant inquiry is whether, considering the 
evidence in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could 
have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.9  In this 
case, after a thorough review of the Superior Court record, the Court concludes that 
                                                                                                                                            
 
trial.” (quoting Daniels v. State, 859 A.2d 1008, 1011 (Del. 2004))). 
9 Dixon v. State, 567 A.2d 854, 857 (Del. 1989). 
9 
 
there was sufficient evidence supporting the jury’s conviction of Washington on 
two counts each of Manslaughter and Possession of a Firearm During the 
Commission of a Felony. 
(25) The Court concludes that Washington’s appeal is wholly without 
merit and devoid of any arguably appealable issue.  We are satisfied that Counsel 
made a conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and properly 
determined that Washington could not raise a meritorious claim on 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/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
Justice