Standford v. State of Delaware.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW C ASTLE COUNTY RAIM YA S TAN DFO RD, Defendant Below, Appe llant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ID No. 0605016734 Submitted: September 16, 2008 Decided: December 8, 2008 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas. AFFIRMED. Regina E. Gra y, Esquire, Pub lic Defen der s O ffice, 900 N. Kin g Street, Wilmin gton, D E 198 01. Co unsel fo r App ellant. Raimya Standf ord, 32 Teal Cir cle, New ark, DE 19702 . Joshua D. Klein, Esquire, Department of Justice, 820 N. French Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801. Counsel for Appellee. CAR PEN TER , J. Before this Court is Raimya Standford s (the Appellant ) appeal from the Court of Common Pleas. Upon consideration of the Appellant s brief filed pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 26(c), her attorney s M otion to W ithdraw, the d efendant s statement regarding her app eal, and the State s response thereto, the decision rendered below is hereby AFFIRMED. 1. A Court of Common Pleas jury found the Appellant guilty of Harassment on January 10, 200 8. The C ourt sen tenced h er to two month s of Lev el V incarceration, suspended for six months at Level II probation, followed by six months of Lev el I probation. She is also required to pay the following: (1) court costs, (2) a fine of $100, and (3) various assessments to the Victim s Compensation Fund and the Public Defender s Office. Further, the Appellant is not permitted to have any contact with the victim or the v ictim s family. This is the Appellant s appeal of that decision. 2. The Appellant s counsel has filed a Motion to Withd raw pu rsuant to Rule 26(c). Counsel asserts that the Appellant has failed to respond to any correspondence from the Off ice of the Public Defender and has not spoken with counsel. Counsel delivered to the A ppellant th e Motio n to W ithdraw , the Rule 26(c) brief and the trial transcript on July 1 1, 2008 . Coun sel furthe r advised the Ap pellant tha t she cou ld state, in writin g, any points she wanted this Court to consider on appeal. The Appellant submitted a letter to this Court raising some issues for consideration. The State has respond ed to the A ppellant s points, as well as to counse l s Motio n to Withd raw, an d has m oved to affirm th e Cour t of Com mon P leas judg ment. 3. The standard and scope of review for a motion to withdraw and a R ule 26(c) brief require the following: (1) this Court must be satisfied that defense counsel has made a conscientious examin ation of th e record and the la w for a rguable claims; and (2) this 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 withou t an adve rsary rep resentatio n. 1 4. The testimony at trial established that Lakeish a Smith ( Ms. Smith ) has been in a relation ship w ith Ded ric Wheeler, the Appellant s husband, for three years. Ms. Smith testified that the Appellant came to her home late at night on May 16, 2006, banged on the front door and used threatening language. Ms. Smith s teenage daughter also testified that the Appellant had been at their house that night. The Appellant denied going to Ms. Smith s house on that date, but did testify that she had been there on other occasions. 5. In response to her counsel s Rule 26(c) brief, the Appellant has presented a letter explaining her reasons for appealing the case. The Appellant makes the following points in support of her appeal: (1) Ms. S mith testified falsely; (2) she was not given the opportunity to respond to M s. Smith s testimon y; (3) the p rosecuto r did not appropriately focus his questions on the date of the incident; and (4) Ms. S mith has threatened her. 1 Smith v. State, 2008 WL 3990859, at *1 (Del. Aug. 28, 2008) (citing Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (Del. 1988)). 6. The Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded that the Appellant s appeal is without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable issues. First, there is no evidenc e presen ted to sup port the A ppellant s contentio n that Ms. Smith testified falsely. It is the province of the jury to determine the credibility of testimony presented at trial, and there is no thing in th e record to suggest that the jury did not properly do so.2 7. Second, the Appellant argues that she was n ot permitted to respo nd to Ms. Smith s testimony. However, based upon a review of the record, the Court finds that the Ap pellant did testify at trial, and therefor e, was able to re spond to M s. Smith s testimony and cou nsel cros s-exam ined M s. Smith regardin g the incident. To the extent that the Defendant is claiming that the Court in some manner prevented counsel from fully question ing M s. Smith , such a cla im is not supported by the record. All of the side bar conferences were recorded and the only issue discussed was whether the criminal history of the witnesses could be used during cross examination. 8. Third, while the prosecutor s questions went beyond the incident of May 16, 2006, the Court finds they were app ropriate to put the incident on that day in perspective with res pect to the ongoing interaction between these individuals. 3 To the extent that the Appellant is asserting a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, the Court is not persuaded and finds no colorable claim. 2 Livingston v. State, 2008 WL 4216024, at *1 (Del. Sept. 16, 2008). 3 See Trial Tr. at 22, 25, 28-29. 9. Fourth, the Appellant alleges that Ms. Smith has threatened her. Whether Ms. Smith s conduct can be ap propria tely characterized in this manner is simply not relevant to this case and is not an appealable issue for the Court to consider. 10. Based on the Court s review of the record, the Court is satisfied that the Appellant s counsel has made a conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has pro perly dete rmined that th e App ellant has n o meritorious claim on app eal. Therefore, the judgment of the Court of Com mon P leas is affirm ed and th e Motio n to Withd raw is m oot. IT IS SO ORDERED. Judge William C. Carpenter, Jr.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
