Court Opinion

ID: 9378020
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-09 16:02:54.01973+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:18.528141
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

 RICHARD HAINES,                          §
                                          §   No. 262, 2022
       Defendant Below,                   §
       Appellant,                         §
                                          §   Court Below—Superior Court
       v.                                 §   of the State of Delaware
                                          §
 STATE OF DELAWARE,                       §   Cr. ID No. 2012011384 (K)
                                          §
       Appellee.                          §
                                          §

                          Submitted: January 18, 2023
                           Decided: March 9, 2023

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, 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)    On March 1, 2022, a Superior Court jury found the appellant, Richard

Haines, guilty of one count of attempted first-degree rape, one count of attempted

first-degree sexual abuse of a child by a person of trust, thirty-one counts of second-

degree rape, ten counts of fourth-degree rape, five counts of first-degree sexual abuse

of a child by a person of trust, four counts of first-degree unlawful sexual contact,

thirteen counts of second-degree unlawful sexual contact, eight count counts of

second-degree sexual abuse of a child by a person of trust, two counts of continuous
sexual abuse of a child, and two counts of endangering the welfare of a child. The

jury found Haines not guilty of one count of first-degree rape, one count of first

degree sexual abuse of a child by a person of trust, first-degree unlawful sexual

contact, and one count of breach of conditions of bond. The victims of these crimes

were two children of Haines’s girlfriend.

      (2)    Based on the age of one of the victims, the State applied for enhanced

sentencing under 11 Del. C. § 4205A for three of the convictions relating to that

victim (attempted first-degree rape, attempted first-degree sexual abuse of a child by

a person of trust, and continuous sexual abuse of a child). Section 4205A(2)

provides that the Superior Court shall, upon the State’s application, sentence a

defendant convicted of certain crimes to not less than twenty-five years up to life

imprisonment if the victim was under the age of fourteen. At sentencing, Haines’s

counsel (“Counsel”) conceded that he did not have a basis to oppose the application.

The Superior Court ultimately sentenced Haines to more than 550 years of non-

suspended Level V incarceration. This is Haines’s direct appeal.

      (3)    On appeal, Counsel filed a brief and a motion to withdraw under Rule

26(c). Counsel asserts that, based upon a complete and careful examination of the

record, there are no arguably appealable issues. Counsel informed Haines of the

provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided him with a copy of the motion to withdraw

and the accompanying brief.

                                            2
         (4)     Counsel also informed Haines of his right to identify any points he

wished this Court to consider on appeal. Haines has not provided points for this

Court’s consideration. The State has responded to the Rule 26(c) brief and has

moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment.

         (5)     When reviewing a motion to withdraw and an accompanying brief

under Rule 26(c), this Court must: (i) be satisfied that defense counsel has made a

conscientious examination of the record and the law for arguable claims; and (ii)

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

         (6)     This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded that

Haines’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable

issue. We also are satisfied that Counsel has made a conscientious effort to examine

the record and the law and has properly determined that Haines could not raise a

meritorious claim on appeal.

1
    Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); Leacock v. State, 690 A.2d 926, 927-28 (Del. 1996).

                                                 3
     NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior

Court AFFIRMED. The motion to withdraw is moot.

                                 BY THE COURT:

                                 /s/ Karen L. Valihura
                                 Justice

                                    4