Flowers v. State

Summary

The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed Keron S. Flowers’s convictions and sentence for home invasion—first-degree burglary, attempted first-degree robbery, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, wearing a disguise during a felony, second-degree conspiracy, and third-degree assault. Applying Supreme Court Rule 26(c), the Court found no arguably appealable issue in Flowers’s challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, witness credibility, alleged prosecutorial misstatement, surveillance footage, jury impartiality, or verdict characterization. The Court granted the State’s motion to affirm and deemed appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw moot.

Holdings

1. The evidence was sufficient to support Flowers' convictions for home invasion—first-degree burglary, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, wearing a disguise during the commission of a felony, second-degree conspiracy, and third-degree assault.
2. A defendant may be convicted of home invasion—first-degree burglary despite initially being invited into the dwelling if the defendant thereafter remains unlawfully with the intent to commit a crime.
3. The jury, as the sole trier of fact, was responsible for assessing witness credibility and resolving conflicts in testimony.
4. Flowers failed to establish plain error or prejudice from the witness's absence, and his failure to object to the surveillance footage precluded relief absent a basis for sua sponte exclusion.
5. The record did not support a claim that the jury was tainted, and the verdict form established that the jury convicted Flowers of home invasion—first-degree burglary.
6. The appeal was wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable issue, and counsel satisfied the obligations required for withdrawal under Rule 26(c).

Questions Presented

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain Flowers' convictions.
2. Whether the prosecutor falsely represented that Flowers' DNA was found on the recovered firearm.
3. Whether the Superior Court erred by failing to dismiss the case after a witness failed to appear, by failing to resolve conflicting witness testimony, or by failing to exclude surveillance footage.
4. Whether the jury was tainted or returned a verdict only for first-degree burglary rather than home invasion.
5. Whether the record supported a different speedy-trial result for Flowers from the result reached for Boykin.

Disposition

affirmed