Summary
The Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed Terry Malin's convictions for first-degree robbery and two counts of second-degree robbery. The court rejected his claims concerning Miranda warnings, indictment irregularities, speedy trial, insufficiency of the evidence, and ineffective assistance of counsel, and granted counsel's motion to withdraw under Delaware Supreme Court Rule 26(c).
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the absence or alleged failure to read Miranda warnings entitled Malin to relief when no statement by him was introduced at trial.
- Whether alleged irregularities in the indictment warranted relief when no objection was made before trial.
- Whether the approximately one-year period between arrest and trial violated Malin's speedy-trial rights.
- Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the robbery convictions, including whether the victims' reactions and the robbery notes established the required threat or implied threat of force.
- Whether the court should consider Malin's ineffective-assistance claim for the first time on direct appeal.
- Whether counsel should be permitted to withdraw under Rule 26(c) because the appeal presented no arguably appealable issue.
Holdings
- A Rule 26(c) motion to withdraw may be granted when counsel has conscientiously examined the record and law for arguably appealable issues and the court's independent review confirms that the appeal is wholly devoid of such an issue.
- A claim that Miranda warnings were not given is meritless when no statement by the defendant was introduced at trial.
- Objections to the form of an indictment are waived if not raised before trial.
- Malin established no speedy-trial violation under the circumstances of his case.
- The evidence was sufficient to support Malin's robbery convictions because a rational factfinder could identify him as the robber and find the required threats or implied threats of force beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The Delaware Supreme Court will not entertain an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim raised for the first time on direct appeal.
Key quotations
“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.”
“In sum, there is no factual support for Malin's claim of insufficiency of the evidence and, therefore, we conclude that it is without merit.”
Factual background
On August 27, 2006, a man wearing distinctive clothing entered a Wawa store, handed the cashier a note demanding money, kept his hand in his pocket, and took $201. A similar robbery occurred at another Wawa store on August 31, 2006, involving a note threatening to shoot and a man wearing similar clothing. Surveillance images, distinctive tattoos, and clothing and a Jeff Gordon baseball cap found in vehicles associated with Malin linked him to the robberies.
Procedural history
A Superior Court jury found Malin guilty of one count of first-degree robbery and two counts of second-degree robbery. The Superior Court sentenced him to three years at Level V on the first-degree robbery conviction and a total of two years at Level V on the remaining convictions, suspended for decreasing levels of supervision. On direct appeal, counsel moved to withdraw under Delaware Supreme Court Rule 26(c), Malin raised thirteen issues, and the State moved to affirm.