Title: Domingo v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 412, 2022
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: January 3, 2024

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
PETER DOMINGO, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 412, 2022 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID No. 2002017428 (N) 
§  
§ 
 
Submitted: November 16, 2023 
Decided: 
January 3, 2024 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; LEGROW and GRIFFITHS, Justices. 
 
 
ORDER 
 
After consideration of the brief and motion to withdraw filed by the 
appellant’s counsel under Supreme Court Rule 26(c), the State’s response, and the 
record on appeal, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
A Superior Court jury found the appellant, Peter Domingo, guilty of 
first-degree assault, as a lesser-included offense of attempted first-degree murder; 
first-degree burglary; possession of a deadly weapon during the commission of a 
felony; and possession of a deadly weapon by a person prohibited.  The jury 
acquitted Domingo of terroristic threatening.  The Superior Court sentenced 
Domingo to an aggregate of thirty-three years of imprisonment, suspended after 
thirteen years for decreasing levels of supervision.  This is Domingo’s direct appeal. 
 
2 
(2) 
On appeal, Domingo’s counsel has filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw under Supreme Court Rule 26(c).  Domingo’s counsel asserts that, based 
upon a conscientious review of the record and the law, the appeal is without merit.  
In his statement filed under Rule 26(c), counsel indicates that he provided Domingo 
with a copy of the motion to withdraw and the accompanying brief and informed 
Domingo of his right to submit any points that he wanted this Court to consider on 
appeal.  Domingo has not submitted any points for the Court’s consideration, even 
though this Court granted him several extensions to do so.1  The State has responded 
to the Rule 26(c) brief and argues that the Superior Court’s judgment should be 
affirmed.  
(3) 
When reviewing a motion to withdraw and an accompanying brief 
under Rule 26(c), this Court must be satisfied that the appellant’s counsel has made 
a conscientious examination of the record and the law for arguable claims.2  This 
Court must also conduct its own review of the record and determine whether “the 
 
1 Domingo’s trial counsel filed the notice of appeal, as required by Rule 26(a).  Domingo sent 
various pro se letters and motions to the Court, in which he requested either to dismiss his counsel 
and proceed pro se on appeal or to have additional time to file points under Rule 26(c).  The Clerk’s 
office responded with various correspondence informing Domingo of the process for moving to 
proceed pro se under Rule 26(d)(iii) and extending the deadline for Domingo to submit points, 
resulting in a total extension of approximately three and a half months to submit points. 
2 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82-83 (1988); McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 U.S. 
429, 442 (1988); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).  
 
3 
appeal is indeed so frivolous that it may be decided without an adversary 
presentation.”3 
(4) 
The Court has reviewed the record carefully and concluded that the 
appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable issue.  We 
also are satisfied that counsel made a conscientious effort to examine the record and 
the law and properly determined that Domingo could not raise a meritorious claim 
on appeal. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED.  The motion to withdraw is moot.  
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ N. Christopher Griffiths 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
3 Penson, 488 U.S. at 82.