GREGORY D. DORSEY, Defendant Below, Appellant,
STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee.
Submitted: October 30, 2018
Below-Superior Court of the State of Delaware Cr. ID No.
VAUGHN, SEITZ, and TRAYNOR, Justices.
COLLINS J. SEITZ, JR. JUSTICE
consideration of the appellant's Supreme Court Rule 26(c)
brief, the State's response, and the record on appeal, it
appears to the Court that:
February 2, 2018, a Superior Court jury found the appellant,
Gregory D. Dorsey, guilty of Drug Dealing, Aggravated
Possession, and Drag Racing. The parties agreed that the
Aggravated Possession conviction merged with Drug Dealing for
sentencing. After granting the State's motion to declare
Dorsey a habitual offender under 11 Del. C. §
4214(a), the Superior Court sentenced Dorsey as follows: (i)
for Drug Dealing as a habitual offender, fifteen years of
Level V incarceration, suspended after two years and
completion of the Key program for eighteen months of Level
III probation; and (ii) Drag Racing, thirty days of Level V
incarceration suspended for six months of Level II probation.
This is Dorsey's direct appeal.
trial, Detective Matthew Rosaio of the Wilmington Police
Department testified that he was on patrol on March 30, 2017
when he saw a car suddenly accelerate to a high rate of
speed, causing the wheels to spin on the tires. Detective
Rosaio directed the car to pull over. There were two
individuals in the car-Dorsey was the driver. When Dorsey
rolled down the window, Detective Rosaio recognized a strong
odor of PCP.
Detective Rosaio's direction, Dorsey exited the car. He
was searched for PCP, but the police found no drugs on him.
Dorsey was wearing a lanyard around his neck with a container
holding his ID card and a cell phone. During a search of the
car, police officers found a vial of PCP in the glove box.
The other occupant of the car had approximately $800 in cash.
Dorsey initially claimed more than half of that money
belonged to him, but then said it was not his after he
started to fill out a form for return of the money.
police were not able to determine that the number for the
cell phone around Dorsey's neck or that the number for
the other cell phone found in the car belonged to Dorsey or
the other occupant of the car. There was no fingerprint or
DNA collection or testing. There was no audio or video
recording of the stop or Dorsey's comments to the police.
employee of NMS Labs testified that the vial found in the car
contained 6.32 grams of PCP. Detective Trevor Riccobon of the
New Castle County Police Department testified as an expert
witness. He opined that, based on the amount of PCP and
certain language in the text messages on the cell phone
around Dorsey's neck, the PCP found in the car was for
distribution, not personal use.
defense called the owner of the car as a witness. She
testified that she had given the car passenger permission to
use the car on March 30, 2017. She did not know Dorsey was
going to drive the car. She also testified that the PCP found
in the car did not belong to her.
appeal, Dorsey's counsel ("Counsel") filed a
brief and a motion to withdraw under Supreme Court Rule
26(c). Counsel asserts that, based upon a complete and
careful examination of the record, there are no arguably
appealable issues. Counsel informed Dorsey of the provisions
of Rule 26(c) and provided Dorsey with a copy of the motion
to withdraw and the accompanying brief.
Counsel also informed Dorsey of his right to identify any
points he wished this Court to consider on appeal. Dorsey has
raised one point 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.
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 least arguably appealable issues that
it can be decided without an adversary
presentation. We note that Dorsey's conviction for
Drag Racing is not subject to appellate review by this Court
because the thirty-day sentence for that conviction does not
meet the Court's jurisdictional requirements. This
Court's constitutional ...