Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Gordon v. State

Supreme Court of Delaware

December 11, 2013

Anthony GORDON, Defendant Below, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee.

Submitted: Sept. 13, 2013.

Editorial Note:

This decision has been designated as "Table of Decisions Without Published Opinions." in the Atlantic Reporter.

Court Below— Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County, Cr. ID No. 1109011777.

Before HOLLAND, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices.

ORDER

HENRY DuPONT RIDGELY, Justice.

This 11th day of December 2013, upon consideration of the appellant's brief filed pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 26(c) (" Rule 26(c)" ), his attorney's motion to withdraw, and the State's response, it appears to the Court that:

(1) In January 2013, a Superior Court jury found the appellant, Anthony Gordon, guilty of two counts of Rape in the Second Degree and one count of Rape in the Fourth Degree. The victim in the case was the teenage daughter of Gordon's live-in girlfriend. On April 12, 2013, Gordon was sentenced to a total of thirty-five years at Level V, twenty years minimum mandatory, suspended after twenty-one years for decreasing levels of supervision. This is Gordon's direct appeal.

(2) On appeal, Gordon's appellate counsel (" Counsel" ) has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c) asserting that there are no arguably appealable issues. Gordon, through Counsel, has submitted several issues for the Court's consideration.[1] The State has responded to Gordon's issues and has moved to affirm the Superior Court's judgment.

(3) When reviewing a motion to withdraw and an accompanying brief under Rule 26(c), the Court must be satisfied that the defendant's counsel has made a conscientious examination of the record and the law for arguable claims. [2] The Court must also 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]

(4) In this case, the record reflects that in July 2009, 44-year old Gordon was living in Wilmington, Delaware, with his girlfriend and her five children, including the 14-year old victim in this case, Arianna Thomas (" Thomas" ). [4] By May 2010, Gordon, his girlfriend, and her children, had moved to New Castle, Delaware.

(5) At trial, Thomas testified about a July 2009 incident in the Wilmington home when Gordon pulled down her pants, touched her breast and vagina with his hand, and penetrated her vagina with his finger. Thomas also testified about a May 2010 incident in the basement of the New Castle home when Gordon removed her pants and engaged in vaginal and oral intercourse with her, and a June 2010 incident when Gordon removed her underwear and engaged in vaginal intercourse with her and touched her breasts with his penis.

(6) In November 2010, Thomas learned that she was five months pregnant. On April 6, 2011, Thomas gave birth to a son (hereinafter " the child" ). On April 18, 2011, Thomas reported Gordon's sexual abuse to the New Castle County Police.

(7) In December 2011, Gordon was tried on two counts of Rape in the Second Degree and one count of Rape in the Fourth Degree. At trial, a forensic DNA analyst testified that DNA testing conducted on Thomas, Gordon and the child established to a " greater ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.