Title: Nieves v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
MANUEL NIEVES, 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 221, 2012 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below–Superior Court of  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
the State of Delaware in and for 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
New Castle County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
Cr. ID No. 0107022700  
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Submitted:  June 6, 2012 
Decided:  August 9, 2012 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices. 
       
O R D E R 
 
This 9th day of August 2012, after careful consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief, the appellee’s motion to affirm, and the Superior Court record, it 
appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Manuel Nieves, has appealed the Superior Court’s 
April 9, 2012 order accepting, after de novo review and consideration of Nieves’ 
response, a Commissioner’s March 15, 2012 report dismissing Nieves’ motion for 
postconviction relief on procedural grounds.1  The appellee, State of Delaware, has 
moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment on the ground that it is manifest on 
the face of the opening brief that the appeal is without merit.  We agree and affirm.     
                                          
 
1 See Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (listing procedural bars to relief). 
2 
 
(2) 
Nieves argues that under our decision in Lewis v. State, the Superior 
Court abused its discretion when the trial judge sua sponte permitted the jury to 
view the victim’s out-of-court videotaped statement during deliberations.  In our 
decision in Lewis and in Flonnory before it, however, we held that an exception to 
the rule against permitting written or recorded out-of court witness statements in 
the jury room is “where the parties do not object to having written or recorded 
statements go into the jury room as exhibits.”2  Here, Nieves does not argue, and 
the record does not reflect, that the parties objected to having the victim’s out-of-
court videotaped statement go into the jury room as an exhibit.  We therefore 
conclude that the Superior Court did not err when determining that Nieves’ 
argument under Lewis v. State was without merit, and that Nieves’ sixth motion for 
postconviction relief was procedurally barred.3  
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to affirm is 
GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
                                          
 
2 Lewis v. State, 21 A.3d 8, 13-14 (Del. 2011) (citing Flonnory v. State, 893 A.2d 507, 527 (Del. 
2006)).  
3 It appears from the record that this was Nieves’ sixth motion for postconviction relief.  The 
Commissioner’s March 15, 2012 report identified the motion as Nieves’ fifth.