IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
MYLES HARRIS, § § No. 324, 2018 Defendant Below, § Appellant, § Court Below: Superior Court § of the State of Delaware v. § § Cr. ID Nos. 1702016968 (N) STATE OF DELAWARE, § 1703019702A § 1703019702B Plaintiff Below, § Appellee. §
Submitted: November 7, 2018 Decided: February 5, 2019
Before VAUGHN, SEITZ, and TRAYNOR, Justices.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the no-merit brief and motion to withdraw filed by the
appellant’s counsel under Supreme Court Rule 26(c), the State’s response, and the
Superior Court record, it appears to the Court that:
(1) In 2017, as part of a drug investigation, members of the Wilmington
Police Department conducted surveillance of a condominium unit at 110 Towne
Estate Drive where the appellant, Myles Harris, lived with his brother. On February
23, 2017, Detective Alexis Schupp observed Harris leave the residence and drive to
Chestnut Street where he engaged in what appeared to be a hand-to-hand drug
transaction with Angela Wagner. After the transaction, Detective Schupp followed
Harris and pulled him over in the parking lot of the Adams Four Shopping Center. Detective Schupp removed Harris from the vehicle and placed him in handcuffs.
Detective Schupp then found what appeared to be several “logs” of heroin1 on the
driver’s seat of Harris’ vehicle and three cell phones and $225 cash in the vehicle’s
center console.
(2) Detective Danielle Farrell followed Wagner as she proceeded on foot
after her meeting with Harris. Detective Farrell approached Wagner and asked if
she had any drugs on her. Wagner indicated that she did and removed what appeared
to be a log of heroin from her bra.
(3) Following their interactions with Harris and Wagner on February 23,
Detectives Schupp and Farrell joined other officers in a search of Harris’
condominium unit. The two Detectives also participated in a second search of the
unit on March 27. In the February 23 search, the police recovered what appeared to
be several logs of heroin that were hidden behind an air-conditioning unit in a
balcony on the first floor. And in a second floor bedroom, the police recovered
personal paperwork belonging to Harris (including his birth certificate and a
Delmarva Power bill in his name, at the condominium unit’s address), a digital scale,
plastic sandwich bags, and a large amount of money hidden in several shoeboxes
and a Tide pods container. In the March 27 search, the police recovered another
1 A log typically contains between 120 and 130 small bags of heroin. 2 shoebox of cash from the same second floor bedroom and what appeared to be
several logs of heroin, several grams of cocaine, and a loaded handgun that were
hidden in a vent behind the stove and microwave in the kitchen.
(4) Harris and his brother were jointly indicted and tried before a jury for a
number of drug and gun-related offenses and on charges of possession of a firearm
by a person prohibited and possession of ammunition by a person prohibited. The
person-prohibited charges were severed from the drug and gun-related charges.
(5) On January 12, 2018, at the end of a four-day trial, the jury convicted
Harris of two counts of Drug Dealing Tier 4, one count of Drug Dealing Tier 2 with
an Aggravating Factor, two counts of Drug Dealing, two counts of Possession of
Drug Paraphernalia, and one count each of Possession of a Firearm during the
Commission of a Felony and Possession of a Weapon with an Obliterated Serial
Number.2 The jury acquitted Harris’ brother. After the verdict, Harris was tried
before the same jury on the person-prohibited charges and was convicted.
(6) Harris was sentenced to a total of nine years of Level V incarceration
for the drug and gun-related offenses. For his person-prohibited convictions, Harris
was sentenced to a total of ten years of Level V incarceration suspended for eight
2 At the close of the State’s case-in-chief, the trial judge dismissed the conspiracy charges. 3 years of Level IV supervision suspended after six months for Level III probation.
This is Harris’ direct appeal.
(7) In the Rule 26(c) brief and motion to withdraw, Harris’ trial counsel
asserts that, based upon a complete and careful examination of the record, there are
no arguably appealable issues. Harris has supplemented the brief with claims he
would like us to consider on appeal. The State has responded to the position taken
by Harris’ trial counsel, the claims raised by Harris, and has moved to affirm the
Superior Court’s judgment.
(8) When considering a Rule 26(c) brief and motion to withdraw, our
standard and scope of review is twofold.3 First, we must be satisfied that the
appellant’s counsel has made a conscientious examination of the record and the law
for claims that could arguably support the appeal.4 Second, we must conduct our
own review of the record to determine whether the appeal is so totally devoid of at
least arguably appealable issues that it can be decided without an adversary
presentation.5
(9) In his written submission on appeal, Harris claims that he was convicted
on the basis of insufficient evidence. He argues that Wagner’s trial testimony lacked
3 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 U.S. 429, 442 (1988); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). 4 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. at 83. 5 Id. 4 credibility and that an “officer” —Harris does not identify which officer—
“switched [his or her] story multiple times on the stand.” Harris argues that there
was insufficient evidence to convict him of the two weapon possession charges—
Possession of a Deadly Weapon During the Commission of a Felony and Possession
of a Weapon with an Obliterated Serial Number—because there was no physical
evidence linking him to the gun that was seized on March 27. And he further argues
that the State could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he possessed any of
the contraband seized from the condominium unit because, as was proven at trial,
other people also lived in the unit.
(10) We review a sufficiency of evidence claim de novo, to determine
“whether the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, was sufficient
for a rational trier of fact to have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a
reasonable doubt.”6 For the purposes of this inquiry, we do not distinguish between
direct and circumstantial evidence.7 Also, we recognize that it is the “sole province
of the fact finder”—in this case the jury—“to determine witness credibility, resolve
conflicts in testimony and draw any inferences from the proven facts.”8
(11) The evidence at trial supporting the drug and gun-related offenses
included the testimony of: (i) Wagner, who testified that she bought heroin from
6 Carter v. State, 933 A.2d 774, 777 (Del. 2007). 7 Cline v. State, 720 A.2d 891, 892 (Del. 1998). 8 Poon v. State, 880 A.2d 236, 238 (Del. 2005).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
MYLES HARRIS, § § No. 324, 2018 Defendant Below, § Appellant, § Court Below: Superior Court § of the State of Delaware v. § § Cr. ID Nos. 1702016968 (N) STATE OF DELAWARE, § 1703019702A § 1703019702B Plaintiff Below, § Appellee. §
Submitted: November 7, 2018 Decided: February 5, 2019
Before VAUGHN, SEITZ, and TRAYNOR, Justices.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the no-merit brief and motion to withdraw filed by the
appellant’s counsel under Supreme Court Rule 26(c), the State’s response, and the
Superior Court record, it appears to the Court that:
(1) In 2017, as part of a drug investigation, members of the Wilmington
Police Department conducted surveillance of a condominium unit at 110 Towne
Estate Drive where the appellant, Myles Harris, lived with his brother. On February
23, 2017, Detective Alexis Schupp observed Harris leave the residence and drive to
Chestnut Street where he engaged in what appeared to be a hand-to-hand drug
transaction with Angela Wagner. After the transaction, Detective Schupp followed
Harris and pulled him over in the parking lot of the Adams Four Shopping Center. Detective Schupp removed Harris from the vehicle and placed him in handcuffs.
Detective Schupp then found what appeared to be several “logs” of heroin1 on the
driver’s seat of Harris’ vehicle and three cell phones and $225 cash in the vehicle’s
center console.
(2) Detective Danielle Farrell followed Wagner as she proceeded on foot
after her meeting with Harris. Detective Farrell approached Wagner and asked if
she had any drugs on her. Wagner indicated that she did and removed what appeared
to be a log of heroin from her bra.
(3) Following their interactions with Harris and Wagner on February 23,
Detectives Schupp and Farrell joined other officers in a search of Harris’
condominium unit. The two Detectives also participated in a second search of the
unit on March 27. In the February 23 search, the police recovered what appeared to
be several logs of heroin that were hidden behind an air-conditioning unit in a
balcony on the first floor. And in a second floor bedroom, the police recovered
personal paperwork belonging to Harris (including his birth certificate and a
Delmarva Power bill in his name, at the condominium unit’s address), a digital scale,
plastic sandwich bags, and a large amount of money hidden in several shoeboxes
and a Tide pods container. In the March 27 search, the police recovered another
1 A log typically contains between 120 and 130 small bags of heroin. 2 shoebox of cash from the same second floor bedroom and what appeared to be
several logs of heroin, several grams of cocaine, and a loaded handgun that were
hidden in a vent behind the stove and microwave in the kitchen.
(4) Harris and his brother were jointly indicted and tried before a jury for a
number of drug and gun-related offenses and on charges of possession of a firearm
by a person prohibited and possession of ammunition by a person prohibited. The
person-prohibited charges were severed from the drug and gun-related charges.
(5) On January 12, 2018, at the end of a four-day trial, the jury convicted
Harris of two counts of Drug Dealing Tier 4, one count of Drug Dealing Tier 2 with
an Aggravating Factor, two counts of Drug Dealing, two counts of Possession of
Drug Paraphernalia, and one count each of Possession of a Firearm during the
Commission of a Felony and Possession of a Weapon with an Obliterated Serial
Number.2 The jury acquitted Harris’ brother. After the verdict, Harris was tried
before the same jury on the person-prohibited charges and was convicted.
(6) Harris was sentenced to a total of nine years of Level V incarceration
for the drug and gun-related offenses. For his person-prohibited convictions, Harris
was sentenced to a total of ten years of Level V incarceration suspended for eight
2 At the close of the State’s case-in-chief, the trial judge dismissed the conspiracy charges. 3 years of Level IV supervision suspended after six months for Level III probation.
This is Harris’ direct appeal.
(7) In the Rule 26(c) brief and motion to withdraw, Harris’ trial counsel
asserts that, based upon a complete and careful examination of the record, there are
no arguably appealable issues. Harris has supplemented the brief with claims he
would like us to consider on appeal. The State has responded to the position taken
by Harris’ trial counsel, the claims raised by Harris, and has moved to affirm the
Superior Court’s judgment.
(8) When considering a Rule 26(c) brief and motion to withdraw, our
standard and scope of review is twofold.3 First, we must be satisfied that the
appellant’s counsel has made a conscientious examination of the record and the law
for claims that could arguably support the appeal.4 Second, we must conduct our
own review of the record to determine whether the appeal is so totally devoid of at
least arguably appealable issues that it can be decided without an adversary
presentation.5
(9) In his written submission on appeal, Harris claims that he was convicted
on the basis of insufficient evidence. He argues that Wagner’s trial testimony lacked
3 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 U.S. 429, 442 (1988); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). 4 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. at 83. 5 Id. 4 credibility and that an “officer” —Harris does not identify which officer—
“switched [his or her] story multiple times on the stand.” Harris argues that there
was insufficient evidence to convict him of the two weapon possession charges—
Possession of a Deadly Weapon During the Commission of a Felony and Possession
of a Weapon with an Obliterated Serial Number—because there was no physical
evidence linking him to the gun that was seized on March 27. And he further argues
that the State could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he possessed any of
the contraband seized from the condominium unit because, as was proven at trial,
other people also lived in the unit.
(10) We review a sufficiency of evidence claim de novo, to determine
“whether the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, was sufficient
for a rational trier of fact to have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a
reasonable doubt.”6 For the purposes of this inquiry, we do not distinguish between
direct and circumstantial evidence.7 Also, we recognize that it is the “sole province
of the fact finder”—in this case the jury—“to determine witness credibility, resolve
conflicts in testimony and draw any inferences from the proven facts.”8
(11) The evidence at trial supporting the drug and gun-related offenses
included the testimony of: (i) Wagner, who testified that she bought heroin from
6 Carter v. State, 933 A.2d 774, 777 (Del. 2007). 7 Cline v. State, 720 A.2d 891, 892 (Del. 1998). 8 Poon v. State, 880 A.2d 236, 238 (Del. 2005). 5 Harris on February 23; (ii) Detectives Schupp and Farrell, who described their
respective encounters with Wagner and Harris on February 23 and testified about
the contraband and other items seized on February 23 and March 27; (iii) Corporal
Hugh Stephey, a crime scene investigator, who testified about his forensic
examination of the gun; (iv) Dena Lientz, a forensic analytical chemist, who testified
about her chemical analysis of the drugs; (v) Bethany Kleiser, a forensic DNA
analyst, who testified about her analysis of gun swabs and buccal samples; (vi) Kyle
Brown, a forensic chemist, who testified about his chemical analysis of the drugs;
and (vii) Detective Peter Stewart, who gave an expert opinion on whether Harris and
his brother possessed the drugs with an intent to deliver or merely for personal use.
The evidence at trial supporting the person-prohibited charges consisted of a
document containing Harris’ criminal history and Detective Schupp’s testimony that
the criminal history included a felony conviction, which prohibited Harris from
possessing a firearm and ammunition.
(12) Having reviewed the record de novo, we conclude that the evidence
admitted at trial supports the jury’s findings that Harris was guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt of the drug and gun-related offenses and the person-prohibited
charges. Harris’ insufficient evidence claim is without merit. Moreover, having
carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that Harris’ appeal is wholly without
merit and devoid of any arguably appealable issue. We are satisfied that Harris’
6 counsel made a conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and properly
determined that Harris could not raise a meritorious claim on appeal.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is
GRANTED. The Superior Court judgments are AFFIRMED. The motion to
withdraw is moot.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. Justice