Title: Robinson v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 174, 2004
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: May 3, 2005

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
EMMANUEL ROBINSON,
§
§
No. 174, 2004
Defendant Below,
§
Appellant,
§
Court Below: Superior Court of
§
the State of Delaware, in and for
v.
§
New Castle County
§
STATE OF DELAWARE,
 
§
No. 0210009188
§
Plaintiff Below,
§
Appellee.
§
Submitted: April 12, 2005
Decided: May 3, 2005
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices.
ORDER
This 3  day of May 2005, on consideration of the briefs of the parties, it
rd
appears to the Court that:
(1)  The defendant-appellant, Emmanuel Robinson and co-defendants, Mustafa
Whitfield and Akeem Coleman, were jointly indicted on the following charges: (i)
attempted robbery in the first degree; (ii) assault in the second degree; (iii) reckless
endangering in the first degree; (iv) wearing a disguise during the commission of a
felony; (v) conspiracy in the second degree; (vi) possession of a deadly weapon by a
person prohibited (“PDWPP”); and (vii) three counts of possession of a firearm during
the commission of a felony (“PFDCF”).  Following a joint jury trial, all of the
 Whitfield v. State, 2004 Del. LEXIS 586; Coleman v. State, 2005 Del. LEXIS 146.  
1
2
defendants were convicted on all of the charges except for one count of PFDCF and
PDWPP, as to which all defendants were found not guilty. 
(2) In support of his direct appeal, Robinson argues that the trial court erred in
denying his motion for acquittal.  He contends that the offenses of reckless
endangering in the first degree, assault in the second degree and the accompanying
weapons charges are “included” in the offense of attempted robbery in the first degree
and did not constitute separate offenses.  In footnote 2 of his opening brief, Robinson
acknowledges that his argument was previously raised by co-defendants Whitfield and
Coleman in their respective direct appeals.  This argument has been rejected by this
Court in both of the co-defendants’ direct appeals.   We find no reason not to follow
1
our prior holdings.  We therefore reject Robinson’s appellate argument on the basis
of our reasoning in Whitfield.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgments of
conviction against Emmanuel Robinson entered by the Superior Court are
AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
      /s/ Henry duPont Ridgely        
Justice