Title: Hickman v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
LESTER J. HICKMAN,
)
)  No. 584, 2001
Defendant Below,
)
Appellant,
)  Court Below:  Superior Court
)  of the State of Delaware in
v.
)  and for Sussex County
)
STATE OF DELAWARE,
)  Cr. A. No.  IS01-04-0227I and
)  IS01-04-02281I and
Plaintiff Below,
)  Cr. ID No. 0104000979
Appellee.
)
Submitted:  May 7, 2002
Decided:  June 7, 2002
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, BERGER and STEELE, Justices.
O R D E R
This 7th day of June 2002, on consideration of the briefs of the parties, it
appears to the Court that:
1)
In August 2001, a Superior Court jury convicted Appellant Lester J.
Hickman of Trafficking in Cocaine, Possession with Intent to Deliver a Narcotic
Schedule II Controlled Substance (Cocaine), Possession of Drug Paraphernalia,
and Possession of Cocaine.  This is Hickman’s direct appeal.
2)
On April 2, 2001, Delaware State Police Officers conducting
surveillance observed Hickman repeatedly engaged in activity consistent with the
distribution of illegal drugs outside of his residence.  Based on their observations,
the officers obtained a search warrant for Hickman’s property.  Once inside
2
Hickman’s trailer-home, the officers discovered nearly $6,000 in cash. In addition,
they located a bag containing 6.01 grams of crack cocaine buried in Hickman’s
backyard.
3)
Hickman contends that the trial court committed reversible error by
failing to provide the jury with an instruction limiting their consideration of police
testimony that officers had observed Hickman selling drugs to the specific purpose
of proving intent to sell cocaine.  Delaware Rule of Evidence 404(b) prohibits the
introduction of evidence of other crimes or bad acts in order to prove the character
of any person.  That evidence is, however, admissible for other purposes including
intent.  In Getz v. State, we held that the trial judge should instruct the jury
concerning the limited purpose of the evidence of other wrongful acts.1  We agree
with Appellant’s contention that the evidence of his alleged drug dealing would
normally require a Getz instruction.   In this instance, however, the record plainly
shows that, when the trial judge raised the issue of a potential Getz instruction,
defense counsel affirmatively waived his right to one, noting that he was making a
tactical decision intended to minimize the jury’s courtroom exposure to Hickman’s
alleged drug distribution.  Hickman’s unequivocal waiver of his right to a Getz
instruction at trial forfeits any claim for plain error review on appeal.
                                                
1 538 A.2d 726, 734 (Del. 1988).
3
4)
Alternatively, Hickman advances the argument that the drugs seized
from his home during the execution of a valid search warrant should have been
suppressed because the police officers did not follow the “knock and announce”
rule before entering his residence.  Defense counsel did not include this argument
in the suppression motion filed before trial.  Indeed, the record is devoid of any
evidence that the police executing the warrant in question did not properly
announce their presence.  Because a trial judge cannot err by failing to suppress
evidence where the record lacks any evidence or suggestion that the State acted
improperly, this argument lacks merit.
5)
Finally, on its own initiative, the State has agreed that the trial court
erred by allowing the jury to return guilty verdicts on charges of both trafficking
and possession of cocaine.  Indeed, we have held that a conviction for both
Trafficking of Cocaine and the lesser-included offense of Possession of Cocaine
constitutes double jeopardy under both the United States and Delaware
constitutions.2  Thus, we find that Hickman’s conviction on the possession charge
must be vacated.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior
Court be, and hereby is, AFFIRMED in part and VACATED in part.  Appellant’s
convictions for Trafficking in Cocaine, Possession with Intent to Deliver a
                                                
2 McRae v. State, 782 A.2d 265, 2001 WL 1175349 (Del. 2001) (order).
4
Narcotic Schedule II Controlled Substance (Cocaine), and Possession of Drug
Paraphernalia are AFFIRMED.  The conviction for Possession of Cocaine is
VACATED.  This matter is REMANDED to the Superior Court for resentencing
in accordance with this Order.
BY THE COURT:
_/s/ Myron T. Steele___________________
Justice