 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Franklin v. State10/19/2004
Submitted: July 7, 2004
ORDER
This 19th day of October 2004, upon consideration of the appellant's brief filed pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 26(c), his attorney's motion to withdraw and the State's response thereto, it appears to the Court that:
(1) The appellant, John M. Franklin, was charged by Information with one count of Driving Under the Influence . After a two-day jury trial, Franklin was found guilty as charged. He was sentenced to four years at Level V supervision, suspended after serving six months and upon successful completion of the Key Program, for six months at Level IV Crest Program, followed by one year at Level III supervision. This is Franklin's direct appeal.
(2) Franklin's trial counsel has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 26(c). The standard and scope of review applicable to the consideration of a motion to withdraw is twofold. First, this Court must be satisfied that defense counsel has made a conscientious examination of the record and the law for claims that could arguably support the appeal. Second, 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.
(3) Franklin's counsel asserts that, based upon a careful and complete examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable issues. By letter, Franklin's counsel informed him of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided him with a copy of the motion to withdraw, the accompanying brief and the complete trial transcript. Franklin also was informed of his right to supplement his attorney's presentation. Franklin responded with a submission that raises three issues for this Court's consideration. The State has responded to the position taken by Franklin's counsel as well as to the issues raised by Franklin and has moved to affirm the Superior Court's judgment.
(4) The evidence at trial established the following events. At approximately 8:45 a.m. on April 15, 2003, Franklin reported to the Probation and Parole Office in Georgetown for a routine office visit. From her office window, Probation Officer Victoria Rollison watched Franklin drive his pickup truck onto the property and toward the entrance of the building. Franklin signed into the building at 8:47 a.m. and waited in the reception area. Approximately ninety minutes later, Officer Rollison called Franklin into her office.
(5) During their forty-five minute meeting, Officer Rollison observed that Franklin's face was extremely red, his eyes were glassy and bloodshot, and that he periodically slurred his words. In response to Officer Rollison's routine questioning, Franklin stated that he had last had a drink two years ago, and that the redness in his face was due to medication for skin cancer.
Notwithstanding Franklin's responses to her questions, Officer Rollison believed that Franklin was impaired.
(6) At the request of Officer Rollison, Probation Officer Hans Mulford, a certified alcohol testing technician, spoke to Franklin on the morning of April 15. Officer Mulford testified that Franklin had a "very strong" odor of alcohol about him, glassy eyes, a flushed face, and slurred his speech, all of which led Officer Mulford to believe that Franklin was intoxicated or that he had been drinking. When Officer Mulford asked Franklin when he had last had a drink, Franklin responded, at first, that he had not had a drink in two years, but then he changed his answer to state that he had taken a drink two days previously.
(7) Franklin's wife, Karen Franklin, testified that F
Page 1 2 3 Delaware DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|