Salaberrios v. State, 248, 2016

In May 2014, inmate Manuel Salaberrios struck fellow inmate Scott Kuntz at the Central Violation of Probation Center; the incident was captured on security video and Kuntz had a lip laceration and swelling.
Salaberrios was indicted for assault in a detention facility; at trial the State sought a lesser-included instruction for attempted assault and did not call the victim Kuntz as a witness.
A jury convicted Salaberrios of attempted assault in a detention facility (lesser-included offense) on December 12, 2014.
Before sentencing the State moved to declare Salaberrios a habitual offender; the Superior Court later imposed an eight-year mandatory Level V sentence (habitual offender) followed by six months Level IV.
Appellate counsel filed a Rule 26(c) no-merit brief and motion to withdraw; Salaberrios submitted pro se points raising issues including competency, confrontation/Brady, sufficiency, jury instructions, and ineffective assistance.
The Delaware Supreme Court reviewed the record, found no nonfrivolous appellate issues, granted the State’s motion to affirm, and affirmed the Superior Court judgment.

Issue	Salaberrios' Argument	State's Argument	Held
Validity of lesser-included instruction	Jury should not have been given attempted-assault instruction	Instruction proper because evidence could rationally support attempt verdict	Court: Instruction was proper and supported by the evidence
Sufficiency of evidence	Insufficient evidence to support conviction	Video and nurse testimony show substantial step/physical injury supporting attempt	Court: Evidence sufficient for attempted assault conviction
Competency to stand trial	He was mentally unfit; reported hearing voices before sentencing	Trial record showed no contemporaneous indication of incompetency requiring inquiry	Court: No record-based reason to find incompetency on direct appeal
Confrontation/Brady and witness withholding	State failed to call victim and listed officers, denying confrontation and withheld favorable witnesses	Prosecutor not required to call particular witnesses; no suppression of exculpatory material; defense could call listed officers	Court: No Confrontation or Brady violation; State’s witness choices lawful
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Counsel failed to notify court of mental issues and was unprepared for lesser-included offense	Such claims are for collateral postconviction review, not direct appeal	Court: Ineffective-assistance claims not decided on direct appeal; may be raised in postconviction motion

Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (U.S. 1988) (standards for counsel withdrawal/no-merit appellate brief)
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedures when appellate counsel seeks to withdraw)
McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 U.S. 429 (U.S. 1988) (appellate counsel obligations)
Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357 (U.S. 1978) (prosecutorial charging discretion)
Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (U.S. 1974) (Confrontation Clause and cross-examination)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (state must disclose materially exculpatory evidence)
Rybicki v. State, 119 A.3d 663 (Del. 2015) (jury instructions must be correct and not misleading)
Goode v. State, 136 A.3d 303 (Del. 2016) (sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard)
Kostyshyn v. State, 51 A.3d 416 (Del. 2012) (competency-to-stand-trial standard)
Desmond v. State, 654 A.2d 821 (Del. 1994) (ineffective assistance claims reviewed in postconviction proceedings)
Albury v. State, 551 A.2d 53 (Del. 1988) (prosecutorial discretion to charge)