Opinion
No. 534, 2000
Decided: February 22, 2002
Court Below — Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for Kent County in IK99-08-0264 0265. Def. ID No. 9907014649.
Affirmed.
Unpublished opinion is below.
PETER D. MARTINEZ, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. No. 534, 2000 In the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. Submitted: January 15, 2002 Decided: February 22, 2002
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and HOLLAND, Justices.
Joseph T. Walsh, Justice:
ORDER
This 22nd day of February 2002, it appears to the Court that:
(1) In September 1999, Peter D. Martinez was indicted for the offenses of Attempted Murder in the First Degree and Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony. After a three-day jury trial in June 2000, Martinez was found guilty of the lesser-included offense of Assault in the Second Degree and Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony. On October 25, 2000, Martinez was sentenced to 11 years at Level V, suspended after four years, for nine months at Level IV Work Release, followed by one year at Level III and one year at Level II.
(2) Martinez' counsel has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c). Martinez' counsel asserts that, based upon a careful and complete examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable issues. By letter, counsel informed Martinez of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Martinez with a copy of the motion to withdraw, the accompanying brief, and the trial transcript. Martinez also was informed of his right to supplement his counsel's presentation. Martinez, through an interpreter, submitted several issues to his counsel for this Court's consideration.
(3) The standard and scope of review applicable to the consideration of a motion to withdraw and an accompanying brief under Rule 26(c) is twofold. First, the Court must be satisfied that defense counsel made a conscientious examination of the record and the law for claims that could arguably support the appeal. Second, the Court must 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.
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) The record reflects that on Wednesday, July 21, 1999, Ruben Leon, and Leon's girlfriend, Miriam Martinez ("Miriam"), along with her two children, traveled by car to Papen Farms in Wyoming, Delaware, where Leon intended to apply for a job. Alvrea Garcia, Gretchen Peck, and Clara Martinez, employees from Telamon Corporation, followed Leon and Miriam in a separate car.
Telamon Corporation provides employment and training services to migrant workers.
(5) Upon arriving at the farm's housing area, Miriam and Leon were approached by Martinez, who is Miriam's estranged husband and the father of her two children. While Martinez spoke to Miriam and visited with his children, Leon went to inquire about employment. During their conversation, Miriam refused Martinez' request to take the children to visit her parents, who were at the camp that day. Martinez became upset and approached Leon, who was nearby talking to friends. The two men exchanged words and began fighting. After a few minutes of fighting, Martinez and Leon were separated by onlookers. When Leon turned his back on Martinez to walk away, Martinez picked up a board and approached Leon from behind. Garcia yelled to Leon, warning him that Martinez was behind him with a board. At that point, Leon ran, with Martinez in pursuit.
(6) The two men ran between some cabins. A short time later, witnesses heard gun fire. Leon, who had been shot, appeared from between the cabins, ran to his car and left with Miriam and the children. After a brief stop in Wyoming Park, Leon drove to the hospital where he received treatment for his gunshot wounds.
The record reflects that Leon was struck by shotgun pellets on his torso and both legs.
(7) Martinez left the area and went to his cousin's house in Dover. The following day while in Dover, Martinez sustained fractures to his ankles and was apprehended by Dover police.
At trial, the parties stipulated that the Dover police found the injured Martinez in a trash dumpster, where it appeared Martinez had jumped. Martinez testified, however, that while he was in Dover, he became concerned that he needed an attorney. According to Martinez, in his haste leaving his cousin's apartment to find an attorney, he injured himself jumping from a second floor balcony to the first floor.
(8) The State police interviewed Martinez at the hospital where he was taken for treatment of his injuries. Corporal George Camacho served as a Spanish-English interpreter, translating questions asked by Detective Gordon Bowers, as well as Martinez' responses to the questions. At trial, Corporal Camacho testified that both he and Martinez spoke the Puerto Rican dialect, and that he had no difficulty communicating with Martinez.
(9) According to Corporal Camacho, Martinez admitted during the hospital interview that he confronted Leon with a shotgun after fighting with Leon at the Papen Farms housing camp. Martinez told Corporal Camacho that he didn't want to kill Leon, so he aimed and shot at the lower part of Leon's body.
(10) Leon testified at trial that he and Martinez got into a fight, and that Martinez picked up a board and followed him. According to Leon, Martinez tossed away the board, grabbed a shotgun from one of the cabins and continued chasing him. Leon testified that Martinez shot at him from a distance of ten feet, striking him in the knee and the torso.
Leon testified with the assistance of a Spanish-English interpreter.
(11) At trial, Martinez denied shooting Leon. Martinez also denied telling Corporal Camacho during the hospital interview that he shot Leon. According to Martinez, because of a language barrier, he and Corporal Camacho did not understand each other during the interview. Moreover, Martinez testified that, during the interview, he was in a lot of pain and "in another state of mind."
(12) In the points submitted to his counsel, Martinez alleges numerous grounds for relief that collectively allege the following cognizable claims: (i) insufficient evidence; (ii) inconsistent evidence; (iii) inaccurate translation of Martinez' trial testimony; and (v) inaccurate translation of Martinez' statements to police at the hospital. Martinez' claims are without merit.
(13) In his insufficient evidence claim, Martinez alleges that (i) the police investigation did not produce any physical evidence to corroborate Leon's and the other witnesses' trial testimony; (ii) Peck was unable to identify Martinez as the person who was pointing the gun; (iii) Miriam was too far away to see what was happening; (iv) police failed to test Martinez' clothing for gunpowder residue; and (v) the police should have conducted a lineup.
(14) In reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, this Court's standard of review is to determine whether any rational trier of fact, considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. On the weapons charge, the prosecution was required to prove that Martinez was "in possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony." In this case, on the lesser-included charge of Assault in the Second Degree, the prosecution was required to show that Martinez "recklessly or intentionally cause[d] physical injury to another person by means of a deadly weapon."
Morrisey v. State, 620 A.2d 207, 213 (Del. 1993).
(15) Martinez is correct that there was no physical evidence admitted at trial, no gunpowder residue testing performed on his clothing, and no lineup that implicated him as the person who shot Leon. Nonetheless, Leon testified that Martinez pointed a gun at him and shot him, striking and injuring him in the knee and torso. That testimony alone is sufficient to sustain the jury's finding of guilt on the charges of Assault in the Second Degree and Possession of a Firearm during the Commission of a Felony. Martinez' claim of insufficient evidence is without merit.
Detective Bowers testified that he investigated the crime scene at Papen Farms, but he did not find any physical evidence nor did he locate any witnesses to the incident.
(16) In his inconsistent evidence claim, Martinez observes that Leon testified that the shotgun was discharged from a distance of ten feet, whereas medical records submitted into evidence suggested that the shotgun was discharged from a distance of 100 feet. A discrepancy between the medical records' and Leon's estimates of the distance from which the gun was fired does not render the evidence inadmissible. It was up to the jury to resolve the discrepancy in the evidence.
Tyre v. State, 412 A.2d 326, 330 (Del. 1980).
(17) Martinez claims that Officer Camacho mistranslated Martinez' incriminating statements at the hospital, and that the Spanish-English interpreter at trial mistranslated his trial testimony. Martinez does not, however, specify how the translation of his trial testimony was defective, and the record does not support his conclusory allegation that his trial testimony was mistranslated. Moreover, Martinez' claim that Corporal Camacho misunderstood his hospital statements is directly contradicted by Corporal Camacho's trial testimony. It was the jury's duty to resolve issues of witness credibility and conflicting testimony. The jury was free to accept Corporal Camacho's testimony while rejecting the conflicting testimony of Martinez.
Id.
Id.
(18) As part of our independent review of the record in this case, the Court determined, in the interest of justice and judicial efficiency, that the appeal should be remanded to the Superior Court to address two questions. First, the Court asked the Superior Court to consider whether it had complied with the minimum requirements for the use of court interpreters, as set forth in Administrative Directive No. 107 and Diaz v. State. Second, the Court asked the Superior Court to consider whether Martinez' out-of-court statement, as translated into English by a Spanish-English speaking police officer, was properly admitted into evidence.
Administrative Directive No. 107, Supreme Court of Delaware (Apr. 4, 1996).
Diaz v. State, 743 A.2d 1166 (Del. 1999).
Id. at 1183.
(19) In a thorough and well-reasoned report dated November 19, 2001, the Superior Court concluded that it had substantially complied with the minimum requirements for the use of court interpreters, and that Martinez' out-of-court statement, as translated into English by Officer Camacho, was properly admitted into evidence. In supplemental memoranda filed with the Court, counsel agreed with the Superior Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law on remand.
(20) We are satisfied that the record before us clearly supports the findings of fact and conclusions of law arrived at by the Superior Court on remand. Moreover, this Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded that Martinez' appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable issue. We are satisfied that Martinez' counsel made a conscientious effort to examine the record and properly determined that Martinez 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.