Brooks v. State ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •          IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    JAMES A. BROOKS,                         §
    § No. 116, 2021
    Defendant Below,                   §
    Appellant,                         §
    §
    v.                                 § Court Below – Superior Court
    § of the State of Delaware
    STATE OF DELAWARE,                       §
    § Cr. ID No. 171007863 (N)
    Plaintiff Below,                   §
    Appellee.                          §
    Submitted: May 17, 2021
    Decided:   June 4, 2021
    Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; TRAYNOR and MONTGOMERY-REEVES,
    Justices.
    ORDER
    After consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the State’s motion to
    affirm, and the record on appeal, it appears to the Court that:
    (1)    The appellant, James A. Brooks, appeals from the Superior Court’s
    denial of his motion for correction of sentence and his “motion to correct clear legal
    error of law.” The State has filed a motion to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment
    on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Brooks’s opening brief that the appeal
    is without merit. We agree and affirm.
    (2)    This case arises out of an incident in which a restaurant worker who
    was leaving work late at night was robbed at gunpoint by two individuals and shot
    in the leg. In February 2018, a grand jury indicted Brooks for first-degree robbery,
    first-degree assault, two counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of
    a felony (“PFDCF”), possession of a firearm by a person prohibited, two counts of
    wearing a disguise during the commission of a felony, and second-degree
    conspiracy.
    (3)     On August 29, 2018, Brooks pled guilty to second-degree robbery, as a
    lesser-included offense of first-degree robbery; one count of PFDCF; and second-
    degree conspiracy. In exchange for the plea, the State agreed to dismiss the other
    charges and not to seek sentencing as a habitual offender. The Superior Court
    sentenced Brooks as follows:        for second-degree robbery, to five years of
    imprisonment, suspended after two years for six months of Level IV supervision; for
    PFDCF, to five years of imprisonment, with credit for 251 days served; and for
    second-degree conspiracy, to two years of imprisonment, suspended for one year of
    Level III probation.
    (4)     In July 2020, Brooks filed a motion for correction of sentence, and in
    January 2021, he filed a “motion to correct clear legal error of law.” The Superior
    Court denied those motions, and Brooks has appealed. Brooks argues that the
    convictions for second-degree robbery and PFDCF are inconsistent because the
    elements of second-degree robbery do not include the use of a firearm or other
    2
    weapon in the course of committing the offense,1 while the elements of PFDCF
    include possession of a firearm.2 Citing Tilden v. State,3 he contends that a defendant
    may be convicted of both second-degree robbery and PFDCF only if the convictions
    are the result of an exercise of jury lenity during a jury trial.
    (5)     We review the Superior Court’s denial of a motion for correction of
    sentence for abuse of discretion, although we review questions of law de novo.4
    Contrary to Brooks’s contention, Tilden does not stand for the proposition that
    convictions for second-degree robbery and PFDCF are always inconsistent and that
    a defendant may be convicted of both of those offenses only in the context of an
    exercise of jury lenity. In Tilden, the defendant was charged with first-degree
    robbery and possession of a deadly weapon during the commission of a felony
    (“PDWDCF”), but a jury convicted him of PDWDCF and the lesser-included
    offense of second-degree robbery. On appeal, the defendant argued—and the State
    conceded—that the verdicts were inconsistent because “robbery in the second degree
    is elevated to robbery in the first degree if the additional element of possession of a
    1
    See 11 Del. C. § 831 (providing that a person is guilty of second-degree robbery when “in the
    course of committing theft, the person uses or threatens the immediate use of force upon another
    person with intent to: (1) Prevent or overcome resistance to the taking of the property or to the
    retention thereof immediately after the taking; or (2) Compel the owner of the property or another
    person to deliver up the property or to engage in other conduct which aids in the commission of
    the theft”).
    2
    See 11 Del. C. § 1447A(a) (“A person who is in possession of a firearm during the commission
    of a felony is guilty of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony.”).
    3
    
    513 A.2d 1302
     (Del. 1986).
    4
    Reed v. State, 
    2015 WL 667525
    , at *1 (Del. Feb. 12, 2015).
    3
    deadly weapon is charged, as it was here” and, thus, the jury implicitly rejected the
    evidence concerning the weapon element when it declined to convict the defendant
    of first-degree robbery.5 This Court affirmed the defendant’s convictions, holding
    that inconsistent verdicts may be upheld “[i]f the inconsistency can be explained in
    terms of jury lenity” and the judge determines that the verdicts are supported by
    sufficient evidence.6
    (6)    Because Brooks pled guilty, Tilden is inapplicable. If he had proceeded
    to trial, he would have been tried on the indicted charges of first-degree robbery and
    PFDCF; if he had then been convicted of second-degree robbery and PFDCF, the
    court might have been required to consider, under Tilden, whether the verdict could
    be explained by jury lenity and whether the State had presented sufficient evidence
    to support the verdicts. Instead, Brooks pled guilty to second-degree robbery and
    PFDCF, reducing his exposure on the robbery offense and obtaining dismissal of
    numerous other charges, including first-degree assault. By pleading guilty, Brooks
    waived his right to have a jury decide whether the State sufficiently proved that he
    possessed a firearm while committing a robbery.7
    5
    Tilden, 
    513 A.2d at 1305
    .
    6
    
    Id. at 1306-07
    .
    7
    See Pabst v. State, 
    2014 WL 1570250
    , at *2 (Del. Apr. 17, 2014) (stating that a knowing and
    voluntary guilty plea waives any defenses a person might have had to the charges, including
    challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence). Brooks has not demonstrated that his plea was not
    knowingly and voluntarily entered.
    4
    NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is
    GRANTED, and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
    BY THE COURT:
    /s/ Tamika R. Montgomery-Reeves
    Justice
    5
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 116, 2021

Judges: Montgomery-Reeves J.

Filed Date: 6/4/2021

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 6/7/2021