Title: Goodson v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
WALTER C. GOODSON,                      
           
Defendant Below- 
Appellant,   
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
     
 
 
     
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
   No. 222, 2004 
 
   Court Below---Superior Court 
   of the State of Delaware, 
   in and for New Castle County  
   Cr. A. Nos. IN03-11-0376-0378 
                      IN03-11-0600
 
Submitted: November 18, 2004  
Decided: January 7, 2005    
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 7th day of January 2005, upon consideration of the appellant’s brief 
filed pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 26(c), appellant’s counsel’s motion to 
withdraw, the State’s response thereto, and appellant’s counsel’s reply,1 it appears 
to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Walter C. Goodson, was found guilty by a 
Superior Court jury of Misuse of Prisoner Mail, Criminal Contempt, Harassment, 
and Criminal Contempt of a Domestic Violence Protection Order.  He was 
sentenced to a total of 3 years and 6 months incarceration at Level V, to be 
                                                 
1 On November 8, 2004, this Court directed appellant’s counsel to file a reply to the State’s 
response. 
 
 
-2-
followed by a total of 2 years of Level III probation.2  This is Goodson’s direct 
appeal. 
 
(2) 
Goodson’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.3   
 
(3) 
Goodson’s counsel asserted that, based upon a careful and complete 
examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable issues.  By letter, 
Goodson’s counsel informed Goodson 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.  Goodson was also informed of his right to 
supplement his attorney’s presentation.  Goodson responded with a brief that raised 
no issues for this Court’s consideration.  In its response, the State, laudably, 
                                                 
2 Goodson was sentenced to 1 year at Level V on the misuse of prison mail conviction and to 6 
months at Level V on the harassment conviction.  Each sentence was to be followed by 6 months 
of Level III probation. 
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). 
 
 
-3-
conceded that it was a violation of double jeopardy to convict Goodson of both 
misuse of prison mail and the lesser-included offense of harassment and that the 
harassment conviction, therefore, should be reversed.  In a reply filed at the request 
of this Court, Goodson’s counsel agreed with the position taken by the State. 
 
(4) 
The evidence at trial established that, in September 2003, Goodson 
was serving a Level V sentence at the Howard R. Young Correctional Institution.  
As part of its sentencing order, the Superior Court prohibited Goodson from having 
any contact with his estranged wife, Janet Goodson.  Previously, on February 21, 
2003, the Family Court had issued an order for protection from abuse, which 
prohibited Goodson from having any contact with his wife for a period of one year.         
 
(5) 
While serving his sentence, Goodson wrote a letter postmarked 
September 30, 2003, to his wife’s roommate, Vivienne Herrero.  The envelope was 
addressed to “The Dyke Vivienne.”  The letter was filled with profanity and threats 
concerning Herrero’s relationship with Janet Goodson and contained veiled 
messages to Janet Goodson.  The contents of the letter formed the basis for the 
criminal charges against Goodson. 
 
(6) 
A defendant may not be convicted of more than one offense if one 
offense is included in the other.4  An offense is so included when “[i]t is 
                                                 
4 Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 206(a) (1) (2001). 
 
 
-4-
established by the proof of the same or less than all the facts required to establish 
the commission of the offense charged . . . .”5 
 
(7) 
In order to convict Goodson of misuse of prison mail, the prosecution 
had to prove, first, that Goodson was a person in the custody of the State of 
Delaware within a detention facility and, second, that he intentionally 
communicated by mail with Herrero in a manner likely to cause inconvenience, 
annoyance or alarm.6  In order to convict Goodson of harassment, the prosecution 
had to prove that Goodson intentionally communicated with Herrero by mail in a 
manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm.7  These two charges are essentially 
identical, except that the charge of misuse of prison mail requires that the 
perpetrator be a prison inmate.  We conclude that, under the specific facts of this 
case, harassment is a lesser-included offense of misuse of prison mail and that 
Goodson’s conviction of both offenses simultaneously violates double jeopardy.8  
Goodson’s harassment conviction must, therefore, be reversed.  
 
(8) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded that, 
apart from the double jeopardy issue identified above, Goodson’s appeal is without 
merit and devoid of arguably appealable issues.   
                                                 
5 Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 206(b) (1) (2001). 
6 Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 1260(1) (2001). 
7 Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 1311(a) (2) (2001). 
8 Poteat v. State, 840 A.2d 599, 602-03 (Del. 2003). 
 
 
-5-
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED IN PART and REVERSED IN PART.  This matter is 
REMANDED to the Superior Court for entry of a corrected sentencing order that 
vacates Goodson’s harassment conviction and the sentence therefor, in accordance 
with this Order.  The motion to withdraw is moot. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice