Title: Manuel v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
ANDRA L. MANUEL,  
           
Defendant Below- 
Appellant,   
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
     
 
 
     
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
   No. 95, 2003 
 
   Court Below---Superior Court 
   of the State of Delaware, 
   in and for Kent County  
   Cr. A. Nos. IK02-02-0605 thru 
                                      0611
 
Submitted: January 30, 2004  
   Decided: March 25, 2004   
 
Before BERGER, STEELE and JACOBS, Justices 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 25th day of March 2004, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal and 
the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Andra L. Manuel, was found guilty by a 
Superior Court jury of Trafficking in Cocaine, Possession of a Firearm During the 
Commission of a Felony, Possession with Intent to Deliver Cocaine, Possession 
with Intent to Deliver Marijuana, Carrying a Concealed Deadly Weapon and 
Resisting Arrest.1  He was sentenced to a total of 46 years incarceration at Level V, 
                                                 
1 Manuel also was convicted of Possession of a Deadly Weapon By a Person Prohibited 
in a separate Superior Court bench trial. 
 
 
-2-
to be suspended after 37 years for decreasing levels of probation.  This is Manuel’s 
direct appeal.2 
 
(2) 
Trial took place on November 4, 2002.  The Superior Court conducted 
a suppression hearing immediately prior to trial at which there was testimony from 
Aisha Benson, Manuel’s girlfriend, as well as Corporal Reginald Capitan and 
Officer Bianca Ranger of the Dover Police Department.  Benson testified that she 
was awakened at around 2:30 a.m. on February 6, 2002, by a knock on the front 
door of her home at 463 Sussex Avenue, Dover, Delaware.  When she opened the 
door, she saw several police officers, later identified as Officer Ranger, Corporal 
Capitan and Officer Konnick.  When Corporal Capitan asked her if Manuel was 
there, she said no, because she knew him only as “Donte.”  When she tried to close 
the door, Officer Ranger held out her hand and prevented the door from closing.  
Benson stated that Officer Ranger and Corporal Capitan did not ask permission to 
enter, but simply walked through the door with their guns drawn.         
 
(3) 
Corporal Capitan testified that, early in the morning of February 6, 
2002, he, Officer Ranger and Officer Konnick responded to a call from the Dover 
Police dispatcher about Manuel.  A neighbor had reported that Manuel, who was 
wanted on outstanding warrants, one of which involved a weapon charge, was at 
                                                 
2 By Order dated October 21, 2003, this Court permitted Manuel to proceed pro se on 
appeal following an evidentiary hearing in the Superior Court.  Supr. Ct. R. 19(c) and 26(d) (iii). 
 
 
-3-
463 Sussex Avenue.  The dispatcher described Manuel as a dark-skinned African 
American man, around 5 feet, 8 inches tall, and weighing 160 pounds.  Corporal 
Capitan testified that, when Benson opened the door, he could see an African 
American man generally fitting that description sitting on a couch near the door.  
He stated that he assumed the man was Manuel.  He remembered that Officer 
Ranger asked Benson twice if they could enter the house, but did not hear 
Benson’s reply.  After entering the house, Corporal Capitan immediately 
approached Manuel, felt his pockets and placed him in handcuffs.  Manuel then 
tried to run, but was subdued outside the residence with the help of Officer 
Konnick.  A search of Manuel’s person yielded a bag of marijuana, a bag of crack 
cocaine, a large sum of money, and a .45 caliber handgun.           
 
(4) 
Officer Ranger testified that, when Benson opened the door, she asked 
her if Manuel was in the house.  Benson said no and pushed the door towards the 
officers.  In order to prevent being hit in the face, Officer Ranger put out her hand 
to stop the door.  She watched as Benson walked through the living room into the 
kitchen and then turned back to face the officers.  At that point, Officer Ranger 
asked Benson twice if they could enter and the second time Benson said yes.  
 
(5) 
In its oral ruling denying Manuel’s motion to suppress, the Superior 
Court stated that it found the police officers’ testimony concerning the 
 
 
-4-
circumstances of their entry into the residence to be more credible than that of 
Benson.  The Superior Court also made the following findings: first, based on the 
dispatcher’s call, the officers had a sufficient basis to proceed to 463 Sussex 
Avenue to look for Manuel; second, there was no need for the officers to further 
corroborate the neighbor’s tip before proceeding to that address; third, once at the 
residence, the officers entered with the consent of Benson; and, fourth, once it was 
apparent that a man fitting the description of Manuel was present, the officers 
reasonably took immediate action to conduct a pat down search of Manuel.     
 
(6) 
In this appeal, Manuel claims that the Superior Court abused its 
discretion and committed an error of law by failing to suppress the evidence found 
on his person during the search.  He contends that the evidence should have been 
suppressed because: a) the police did not have a reasonable belief he was present at 
463 Sussex Avenue when they knocked at the door because they did not 
corroborate the neighbor’s tip; b) the police did not have permission from Benson 
to enter the residence; and c) the police improperly failed to obtain a nighttime 
search warrant.   
 
 
(7) 
Even when deciding an issue of constitutional dimensions, this Court 
applies a deferential standard of review to the factual findings of the Superior 
 
 
-5-
Court following an evidentiary hearing.3  Moreover, Manuel’s conviction may be 
reversed only if this Court finds the Superior Court’s denial of the motion to 
suppress to be clearly erroneous.4   
 
(8) 
The Superior Court found that there was no need to corroborate the 
neighbor’s tip, since the information from the dispatcher provided a sufficient basis 
for the officers to proceed to 463 Sussex Avenue to look for Manuel.  The Superior 
Court also found that the testimony of the officers was more credible than 
Benson’s and, therefore, found that she gave her consent to the police entry.  
Finally, the Superior Court found that, given the weapon charge against Manuel, 
the pat down search was reasonable in the interest of the officers’ safety.5  Under 
the applicable standard of review, we find no abuse of discretion or error on the 
part of the Superior Court with respect to any of these findings.   
 
(9) 
Manuel’s final claim that the police were required to obtain a 
nighttime warrant is incorrect as a matter of law.  The police sought to locate 
Manuel in connection with the outstanding warrants, not to search the residence at 
463 Sussex Avenue; as such, a nighttime warrant was not required.6    
                                                 
3 Woody v. State, 765 A.2d 1257, 1261 (Del. 2001). 
4 Id. 
5 Morrow v. State, 603 A.2d 835, 837 (Del. 1992). 
6 Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 2308 (2001). 
 
 
-6-
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice