 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Koester v. State10/6/2000
prosecutor based upon the inadmissible portion of Koester's statement. The record also reflects that the prosecutor spoke to the judge about the statement on only two occasions--once prior to trial before the jury entered the courtroom and once at sidebar, outside the hearing of the jury. Koester's claim of impropriety on the part of the prosecutor is, thus, without merit.
(6) Koester's second claim is that the State's witnesses gave conflicting testimony, entitling him to a reversal of his conviction for driving under the influence . Essentially, Koester claims that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction. When a defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support a guilty verdict, the proper standard of appellate review requires this Court to determine whether any rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, could have found the essential elements of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
(7) A review of the trial record reveals the following: witnesses for the State, and Koester himself, testified that he ran the stop sign, drove into a ditch and fled from the accident scene before the police arrived; witnesses for the State testified that Koester smelled of alcohol and his speech was slurred; Koester testified that he had been drinking alcohol prior to the accident, that he did not have a driver's license and that he was worried about going to jail if the police were called to the accident scene; a witness for the State testified that Koester told her he had been drinking, did not have a license and was afraid of going to jail if the police were called; the investigating police officer testified that Koester told him he had been drinking, and that Koester failed field sobriety tests and appeared to be under the influence of alcohol; and witnesses for the State testified that beer cans either fell out of or were thrown by Koester out of his van before the police arrived at the accident scene. This evidence was more than sufficient to sustain a conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol. Koester's claim of insufficient evidence to support his conviction on that charge is, therefore, without merit.
(8) Koester's third claim is that the State's witnesses discussed their testimony with each other outside the courtroom before taking the stand. The record does not reflect that any such discussion took place. There is no indication that defense counsel ever objected to any such discussion or that the Superior Court judge was aware of any such discussion. In the absence of any factual support for this claim, we find that it, too, is without merit.
(9) Koester's fourth, and final, claim is that he was provided ineffective assistance of counsel. This Court will not hear a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel raised for the first time on direct appeal. Accordingly, we will not consider Koester's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel for the first time in this direct appeal.
(10) This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded that Koester's appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable issue. We are also satisfied that Koester's counsel has made a conscientious effort to examine the record and has properly determined that Koester could not raise a meritorious claim in this appeal.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State's motion to affirm is GRANTED. The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. The motion to withdraw is moot.
Page 1 2 Delaware DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|