Title: Perignon Brooks v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 282, 2011
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: December 13, 2011

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
PERIGNON BROOKS,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
Plaintiff Below- 
         Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 282, 2011 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, in and 
§  for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 1004012732 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
                                       Submitted:  November 9, 2011 
 
Decided:  
December 13, 2011 
 
Before HOLLAND, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 13th day of December 2011, 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, Perignon Brooks, was found guilty by a 
Superior Court jury of two counts of Robbery in the First Degree, one count of 
Attempted Robbery in the First Degree and one count of Conspiracy in the Second 
Degree.  On the first robbery conviction, Brooks was sentenced to 5 years at Level 
V incarceration, at different levels of supervision.  On the second robbery 
conviction, he was sentenced to 5 years at Level V, at different levels of 
supervision.  On the conviction of attempted robbery, he was sentenced to 5 years, 
 
2
again at varying levels of supervision.  On the conspiracy conviction, he was 
sentenced to 1 year, at varying levels of supervision. 
 
(2) Brooks’ trial 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.1 
 
(3) Brooks’ counsel asserts that, based upon a careful and complete 
examination of the record and the law, there are no arguably appealable issues.  By 
letter, Brooks’ counsel informed Brooks 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.  Brooks also was informed of his right to supplement 
his attorney’s presentation.  Brooks responded with a brief that raises several issues 
for this Court’s consideration.  The State has responded to the position taken by 
Brooks’ counsel as well as the issues raised by Brooks 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) Brooks raises several issues for this Court’s consideration, which may 
fairly be summarized as follows: a) the evidence adduced at trial did not support 
his conviction of first degree robbery; b) his trial counsel did not inform him that 
he could move to sever his trial from that of his co-defendant; c) the jury was not 
properly instructed on lesser-included offenses; d) a witness with a criminal record 
should have been prevented from testifying; e) the testimony from the victims was 
not credible and precluded a fair jury verdict; and f) there was prosecutorial 
misconduct. 
 
(5) The following evidence was presented at trial.  Three robberies took 
place in New Castle County, Delaware, on April 16, 2010.  The first robbery 
victim testified that he was walking in the area of Wellington Woods at about 8:00 
p.m. when three African-American men got out of a burgundy Hyundai and 
approached him.  One of the men pointed a firearm at him that looked like an Uzi 
while the other two went through his pockets.  A cell phone, a cigarette lighter, a 
cigar and a package of Excedrin capsules were taken.  The second victim testified 
that, at about 9:00 p.m. near Castle Brook Apartments, three African-American 
men approached him as he was walking his dog.  One of the men pointed a weapon 
at him that looked like an Uzi and the others went through his pockets.  Finding 
nothing of value, the men walked off towards DuPont Highway.  The victim called 
911 to report the crime, and told the dispatcher that he watched the men drive off 
 
4
in a red car with a Delaware license plate.  The third victim testified that, a few 
minutes after 9:00 p.m., several men in a burgundy vehicle pulled up beside him as 
he was walking towards the fitness center at Castle Brook Apartments.  Two 
African-American men got out of the vehicle and approached him.  The first man 
pointed an Uzi-like weapon at him and the second took his wallet from his pocket.  
The wallet had no money in it, but did contain the victim’s State identification 
card, his civil air patrol card and his personal business cards.  The robbers then fled 
towards DuPont Highway.  The victim called 911 to report the crime.     
 
(6) Later that evening, based on the information received in the 911 calls, a 
New Castle County police officer spotted, and unsuccessfully attempted to stop, a 
2001 burgundy Hyundai Elantra.  A second police officer joined in pursuing the 
vehicle, which eventually was stopped in a cul-de-sac.  The car, which was being 
driven by a Caucasian woman, was occupied by three African-American men, one 
of whom was Brooks.  A search of the vehicle uncovered an Uzi-like weapon, later 
determined to be an Airsoft pellet gun, the items taken from the first robbery 
victim and the business cards taken from the third robbery victim.  One of the 
business cards was later determined to have Brooks’ fingerprint on it.     
 
(7) Brooks’ first claim is that the evidence adduced at trial did not support 
his conviction of first degree robbery.  He contends that, because he was unarmed 
during the robberies and was unaware that his co-defendant was armed, he could 
 
5
only be convicted of second degree robbery.  Brooks further contends that he 
should only have been convicted of attempted second degree robbery in the 
incident where no property was taken.  The record reflects that witnesses testified 
at trial that Brooks’ co-defendant was armed with, and openly displayed, the 
weapon during all three incidents.  Even if Brooks himself did not wield the 
weapon, there was sufficient evidence that Brooks knew his co-defendant was 
holding the victims at bay while he went through their pockets.  That evidence 
supported the jury’s finding of guilt on the second degree conspiracy2 and first 
degree robbery3 charges beyond a reasonable doubt.4  Moreover, because there was 
evidence that in the second robbery Brooks looked through the victim’s pockets 
but found nothing worth taking, the jury could have found the essential elements of 
attempted first degree robbery beyond a reasonable doubt.5  Because Brooks’ 
robbery convictions were all amply supported by the evidence presented at trial, 
we conclude that his first claim is without merit.    
 
(8) Brooks’ second claim is that his trial counsel did not inform him that a 
motion could be made to sever his trial from that of his co-defendant.  This claim, 
in essence, constitutes a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.  Because the 
                                                 
2 Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, §512. 
3 Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, §832(a) (2). 
4 Williams v. State, 539 A.2d 164, 168 (Del. 1988). 
5 Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, §§531, 832(a) (2). 
 
6
claim was not adjudicated by the Superior Court in the first instance, we decline to 
review it for the first time on direct appeal.6   
 
(9) Brooks’ third claim is that his jury was not properly instructed on 
lesser-included offenses.  Brooks does not explain how the instructions the jury 
received were deficient.  The trial transcript reflects that the jury was instructed on 
the lesser-included offenses of second degree robbery and attempted second degree 
robbery.  This Court reviews jury instructions to determine whether the instruction 
correctly states the applicable law and is not so confusing or inaccurate as to 
undermine the jury’s ability to reach a verdict.7  There is no evidence in the record 
that Brooks’ jury was given erroneous instructions.  To the contrary, the jury 
instructions correctly stated the applicable law and were neither confusing nor 
inaccurate.  We, therefore, conclude that Brooks’ third claim is without merit. 
 
(10) Brooks’ fourth claim is that one of the prosecution’s witnesses should 
not have been permitted to testify because he previously had been convicted of 
shoplifting and theft.  Brooks offers no factual support for this claim, nor is there 
any support for it in the record.  The Delaware Rules of Evidence provide that, as 
long as a potential witness has personal knowledge of the facts to which he will 
offer testimony, there is no bar to his testimony.8  A witness with a criminal record, 
                                                 
6 Desmond v. State, 654 A.2d 821, 829 (Del. 1994). 
7 Cabrera v. State, 747 A.2d 543, 544 (Del. 2000). 
8 D.R.E. 601, 602. 
 
7
although subject to cross-examination regarding his crimes, would not be barred 
from testifying about facts of which he has personal knowledge.9  For these 
reasons, we conclude that Brooks’ fourth claim is without merit. 
 
(11) Brooks’ fifth claim is that the victims’ testimony was not credible and 
precluded a fair verdict.  It is well-settled that the credibility of witnesses is a 
matter exclusively within the province of the jury.10  Brooks has presented no 
support for his claim that the victims’ testimony was false, nor do we find any such 
evidence in the record.  We therefore conclude that Brooks’ fifth claim is without 
merit. 
 
(12) Brooks’ sixth, and final, claim is that the State engaged in prosecutorial 
misconduct.  Specifically, he contends that the prosecutor prejudiced the jury 
against him by pointing at him numerous times before his counsel’s opening 
statement.  The trial transcript reflects that the prosecutor pointed at Brooks several 
times during his opening statement.  However, our review of the record does not 
support Brooks’ claim that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct or that the 
actions of the prosecutor served to prejudice the jury against Brooks.  As such, we 
conclude that Brooks’ final claim also is without merit. 
 
(13) This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded that 
Brooks’ appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable 
                                                 
9 D.R.E. 609. 
10 Poon v. State, 880 A.2d 236, 238 (Del. 2005). 
 
8
issue.  We also are satisfied that Brooks’ counsel has made a conscientious effort 
to examine the record and the law and has properly determined that Brooks 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/ Jack B. Jacobs  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
         Justice