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.

Harris v. State

Supreme Court of Delaware

August 31, 2018

SAMEEN HARRIS, Defendant Below, Appellant,
v.
STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee.

          Submitted: July 9, 2018

          Court Below-Superior Court of the State of Delaware, Cr. ID No. N1612016810 (N)

          Before STRINE, Chief Justice; SEITZ and TRAYNOR, Justices.

          ORDER

          Gary F. Traynor Justice

         This 31st day of August 2018, upon consideration of the appellant's Supreme Court Rule 26(c) brief, the State's response, and the record below, it appears to the Court that:

         (1) On September 7, 2017, a Superior Court jury found the appellant, Sameen Harris, guilty of Drug Dealing and Driving Without a License. After granting the State's motion to declare Harris a habitual offender under 11 Del. C. § 4214(a), the Superior Court sentenced Harris as follows: (i) for Drug Dealing, eight years of Level V incarceration, suspended after three years of Level V incarceration and completion of the Key program, followed by decreasing levels of supervision; and (ii) for Driving Without a License, a $100.00 fine. This is Harris's direct appeal.

         (2) At trial, Delaware State Police Trooper Patrick McAndrew testified that, on December 27, 2016, he was running radar in his marked police car on Route 13 just south of Route 141. Trooper McAndrew saw a white Dodge Charger traveling over the speed limit and directed the driver of the car, Harris (who was the only occupant of the car), to pull over. The police car dashboard camera recorded the stop, and the video was played at trial.

         (3) Trooper McAndrew approached the car and asked Harris for his license, registration, and proof of insurance. Harris said that the car was a rental and that he did not have a license or insurance. While Trooper McAndrew was speaking with Harris, he saw a blue-tinted container containing a green, plant-like substance in plain view in the car. Based on his experience, Trooper McAndrew believed the substance was marijuana. Trooper McAndrew asked Harris about the container, and he said it contained marijuana. Trooper McAndrew then asked Harris if he had anything else on him. Harris initially said no, but after he was asked to leave the car, he admitted that he had lied and that he had pills.

         (4) Trooper McAndrew found two bottles with the prescription labels removed in the car's passenger area. Each bottle contained 58 oxycodone pills. Harris also had $997.00 in cash, consisting mostly of $20.00 bills. Agent Jeremy Smith of the Drug Enforcement Administration testified that the removed labels, the amount of cash and the currency denominations, and the use of a rental car were more indicative of drug dealing than personal use of prescription drugs. At the conclusion of the State's case, Counsel asked that the charge of Driving While Suspended or Revoked be reduced to Driving Without a License because the State offered no evidence that Harris was driving with a suspended or revoked license. The State agreed and the charge in the indictment was amended to Driving Without a License.

         (5) Harris's girlfriend testified for the defense. She testified that she and Harris were prescribed the oxycodone pills that were found in the car after they were in a car accident in November 2016. As a result of the accident, she rented a car, which Harris was driving on December 27, 2016 to check on his mother.

         (6) According to Harris's girlfriend, she gave Harris $800 for a security deposit on a place to rent earlier in the day of Harris's arrest, although on cross-examination she could not recall where the rental unit was. She explained that the pill bottles lacked labels because she had accidentally broken the original bottles and put the pills in new bottles without labels. Harris did not testify. The Superior Court jury found the appellant Sameen Harris, guilty of Drug Dealing and Driving Without a License. This appeal followed.

         (7) On appeal, Harris's counsel ("Counsel") filed a brief and a motion to withdraw under Supreme Court Rule 26(c), asserting that, based upon a complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable issues. Counsel informed Harris of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Harris with a copy of the motion to withdraw and the accompanying brief.

         (8) Counsel also informed Harris of his right to identify any points he wished this Court to consider on appeal. Harris has submitted several points for this Court's consideration. The State has responded to the Rule 26(c) brief and has moved to affirm the Superior Court's judgment.

         (9) When reviewing a motion to withdraw and an accompanying brief under Rule 26(c), this Court must: (i) be satisfied that defense counsel has made a conscientious examination of the record and the law for arguable claims; and (ii) conduct its own review of the record and determine whether the appeal is so totally devoid of at ...


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.