Title: DuPree v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
DURELL T. DUPREE,
§
§
No. 553, 2003
Defendant Below,
§
Appellant,
§
§
v.
§
Court Below:
§
Superior Court of the
STATE OF DELAWARE,
§
State of Delaware in
§
and for New Castle County
Plaintiff Below,
§
Cr. I.D. No. 0209007645
Appellee.
§
Submitted: July 21, 2004
Decided: September 23, 2004
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices.
O R D E R
This 23  day of September, 2004, upon consideration of the briefs of the parties,
rd
it appears to the Court that:
1) Durell T. Dupree appeals from his conviction, following a jury trial, of
multiple counts of aggravated menacing, assault, and possession of a firearm during
the commission of a felony.  Dupree argues that the trial court erred in failing to sever
the numerous charges, which were based on events that transpired on five different
dates.
2) The first incident occurred in November or December 2001, when Dupree
walked up to a high school acquaintance, Jabbar Foster, who was sitting in a park with
2
two friends near the Saddlebrook development.  Dupree was holding a gun, and told
Foster that someone had told him that Foster was planning to beat him up.  Foster
heard the gun being cocked and testified that he thought he was going to die.  The
incident ended when Foster and his friends said they did not know what Dupree was
talking about.
3) The second incident occurred on September 4, 2002.  Robert Vicks, who
knew Dupree through a friend, was driving through Hampton Green when he stopped
to see some friends.  At that time, Dupree asked Vicks if Vicks would like to “hook up
with some sugar babes.” At Dupree’s instruction, Vicks and his passenger, Kelvin
Powers, drove to the Ashton Condominiums parking lot.  When Vicks pulled into the
parking spot, Dupree was standing about ten feet away and motioned for Vicks to wait.
A moment later, a man opened the driver side door, held a gun to Vicks’ head, and
ordered Vicks to “give it up.”  Vicks resisted, and during his struggle with the
assailant, Vicks noticed Dupree making eye contact with the assailant.  Vicks decided
that he should stop fighting with the assailant and try to flee.  As Vicks drove away,
however, the assailant shot him and his passenger.
4) The third incident occurred shortly after the September 4  shooting.  Vicks
th
was driving with his fiancee, Lindsay Donnelly, and his brother.  Vicks pulled into a
gas station and Dupree, driving a green Firebird, pulled in behind him.  Vicks drove
3
off and Dupree followed, flashing his lights.  As Vicks was waiting to turn into a
restaurant parking lot, Dupree fired four shots at Donnelly’s car and then sped off.  A
few days later, a bullet was retrieved from one of the tires on Donnelly’s car.  That
bullet was the same caliber as the bullets retrieved from two of the other September
incidents.
5) The fourth incident occurred on September 10, 2002, when Lavon Byard and
two other man ran into Dupree at a convenience store near Saddlebrook.  Dupree told
the three men that he had a gun, but nothing happened in the store.  As Byard started
walking home, Dupree came up to Byard and started checking the contents of Byard’s
pockets.  Dupree found nothing, and then pulled out his gun and aimed it at Byard’s
stomach.  Dupree told Byard that he was not going to get him, and Byard walked away.
6) The last incident occurred on September 11, 2002, when Dupree approached
Byard and three of his friends in the Saddlebrook development.  Dupree told them he
had a gun and wanted to shoot someone because his cousin had been robbed the night
before.  The four men attacked Dupree, and, during the fight, Dupree shot and
wounded three of them.  The weapon used in this incident was the same as the weapon
used on September 4 .
th
7) Dupree was convicted on the charges relating to the September 4  and
th
September 11   shootings.
th
Wainwright v. State, 504 A.2d 1096, 1100 (Del. 1986).
1
See: Superior Court Criminal Rule 8(a).
2
Wiest v. State, 542 A.2d 1193 (Del. 1988).
3
4
8) Prior to trial, Dupree alerted the court to the possibility that the charges
should be severed.   Dupree explained that, under the prosecutor’s theory of the case,
the separate incidents were all connected.  If the evidence at trial did not support that
theory, however, Dupree “reserved the right” to seek relief in the form of a motion to
sever or a motion for a mistrial.  Dupree never made such a motion.
9) Since the severance issue was not fairly presented to the trial court, our
standard of review is plain error, which is an error “so clearly prejudicial to substantial
rights as to jeopardize the fairness and integrity of the judicial process.”  We are
1
satisfied, based on our review of the record, that there was no plain error.  First, there
was a basis to join the September incidents since they occurred within one week and
involved many of the same people, in the same neighborhood, being threatened or shot
by the same gun.  Second, the fact that the jury acquitted Dupree on the charges
2
relating to three of the five incidents indicates that Dupree suffered no prejudice from
the joinder.3
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgments of the Superior
Court be, and the same hereby are, AFFIRMED.
5
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Carolyn Berger
Justice