Title: Baine v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
FENEL BAINE,
§
§
No. 670, 2006
Defendant Below,
§
Appellant,
§
Court Below–Superior Court
§
of the State of Delaware in and 
v.
§
for Sussex County 
§
STATE OF DELAWARE,
§
§
Plaintiff Below,
§
Cr. ID No. 0512011466
Appellee.
§
Submitted: June 13, 2007
Decided:
August 21, 2007
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices.
O R D E R
This 21  day of August 2007, on consideration of the briefs of the parties, it
st
appears to the Court that:
1) Fenel Baine appeals from his convictions, following a jury trial, of
manslaughter, two counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a
felony, assault second degree, assault third degree and related offenses.  Baine argues
that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions and that the trial court
imposed an excessive sentence because the court had a closed mind.  We find no merit
to these arguments and affirm.
2
2) Late at night, on December 15, 2005, Michael Cannon was shot and killed
in a field between two apartment complexes in Seaford, Delaware.  The events leading
to Cannon’s death began several weeks earlier, when Marcus Johnson “jumped”
Baine’s brother.  According to Nadia Turpin (who had been Baine’s girlfriend at one
point, but was Johnson’s girlfriend at the time of the shooting), Baine was upset about
the fight and told Turpin that he was “going to get” Johnson.
3) On the night in question, Turpin, Johnson and Turpin’s cousin, Rennerd
Berry, were in an apartment in the Chandler Heights Apartments.  At about 11:00
p.m., Devere Taylor, another of Turpin’s cousins, arrived with Nakeisha Trammell,
Baine, and Keenan Bacon.  Baine immediately went to the back room in the
apartment, where Johnson was lying down.  Bacon followed.  From the front of the
apartment Berry heard smacking noises.  Taylor ran into the back room and found
Baine and Bacon hitting Johnson.  As Taylor tried to pull the two men off Johnson,
Taylor saw Baine kick Johnson in the head.  After the attack, Johnson’s head was
bleeding.
4) Baine and Bacon then left the apartment.  Before Turpin took Johnson to the
hospital, Johnson called Cannon and his brother, Jeremy.  When Johnson told them
what had happened, they said they would be right over.  Cannon and Jeremy were at
3
the Seaford Meadows Apartments, a short walk across a field from the Chandler
Heights Apartments.
5)  As Cannon and Jeremy walked across the field, they saw Baine and Bacon
coming toward them.  When the four men were face to face, Baine asked whether
Cannon and Jeremy had jumped Baine’s brother.  Jeremy said no, but Baine hit
Jeremy in the head with a gun, knocking him to the ground.  Baine then tried to put
his gun in Jeremy’s mouth, but Jeremy turned his head away and covered his face with
his arms.  A moment later, Jeremy heard a gunshot, but he was not hit. After Jeremy
heard a second gunshot, he took his arms away from his face and saw his brother lying
on the ground.  Jeremy saw blood on Cannon’s shirt, and thought Cannon had been
shot.  Jeremy stayed with his brother, hollering and crying, until the police arrived.
Jeremy saw Baine and Bacon running toward the Seaford Meadows Apartments.
6) Bacon testified that he had a loaded gun with him, for protection, because he
knew that he and Baine were looking to get the  people who had attacked Baine’s
brother.  Bacon did not pull his gun out, however, until he heard the first gunshot and
got scared.  Bacon shot Cannon and then walked toward the Seaford Meadows
Apartments.  From there,  Bacon and Baine  got a ride with Taylor back to the Pine
Ridge Mobile Home Park, where Baine was staying.  During that ride, Baine told
Taylor that he had pistol whipped Johnson and Jeremy, and that Bacon shot Cannon.
Poon v. State, 880 A.2d 236, 238 (Del. 2005).
1
4
Baine also told Taylor to tell the police that Raymond Purnell was the person who
committed the crimes.   
7) The investigating officers searched the mobile home where Baine had been
staying and found a box of Winchester nine millimeter Luger ammunition with several
rounds missing.  That ammunition had identical markings to a shell casing found at
the scene of the shootings.  The bullet recovered from Cannon’s body was a .32
caliber bullet.  The State did not perform any ballistics tests and did not test soil
samples, DNA or clothing recovered from the crime scene.
8) In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court will not overturn the
jury verdict as long as “a rational trier of fact, considering the evidence in the light
most favorable to the prosecution, could find the essential elements of the offense[s]
beyond a reasonable doubt.”   The record, as outlined above, is more than sufficient
1
to satisfy this standard.  Baine’s only argument to the contrary is that the police failed
to test the physical evidence, such as the bullets, and the witnesses’ testimony was
inconsistent.  These arguable flaws in the State’s case are not dispositive.  A rational
juror could have accepted the numerous witnesses’ accounts of Baine’s actions and
statements as true, despite any inconsistencies; and there is no requirement that the
State test bullets in order to prove that Baine had a gun and fired it.  In sum, we are
Kurzmann v. State, 903 A.2d 702, 714 (Del. 2006) (Citations omitted.)
2
5
satisfied from our review of the record that there was sufficient evidence to support
the guilty verdicts.
9) Baine also argues that the Superior Court exhibited a closed mind in
sentencing him to 95 years at Level V, suspended after 93 years for two years of
probation at Level IV.  This Court undertakes very limited review of a sentence, such
as this, that is within statutory limits:
Where the sentence falls within the statutory limits, we consider
only whether it is based on factual predicates which are false,
impermissible, or lack minimal reliability, judicial vindictiveness
or bias, or a closed mind.  “A judge sentences with a closed mind
when the sentence is based on a preconceived bias without
consideration of the nature of the offense or the character of the
defendant.”2
Baine contends that the trial court exhibited a closed mind when it stated, “[Y]ou will
have to get your justice in the Delaware Supreme Court.” 
10)  It is not at all clear that this statement, standing alone, would suggest any
preconceived bias or closed mind.  When considered in context, however, it is
apparent that the comment does not support Baine’s argument:
THE DEFENDANT:  I didn’t have no gun; the State don’t
have a gun. Don’t  you think the other guy would be shot?
THE COURT:  Do you think that I believe that you didn’t
have a gun after I heard that testimony?
Appellant’s Appendix, A-127-28.
3
6
THE DEFENDANT:  Your Honor,  I’m not trying to, you
know, get a smoother sentence, I’m just saying – because you
know I ain’t had a chance to talk since this been going on.
THE COURT:  You can talk right now all you want.  It is
up to you whether you want to.  You have the right of allocution;
you can say anything you want to sentencing.
THE DEFENDANT:  It’s just crazy, Man.  I’ve been totally
denied of justice.  But I know I’m going to get my justice.
THE COURT:  Well, you will have to get your justice at the
Delaware Supreme Court.  From my point of view, you had
justice.3
The trial court then reviewed Baine’s criminal history; the fact that he was on
probation when he committed these crimes; the vulnerability of the victims; and
Baine’s undue depreciation of the offenses.  The court concluded that Baine was
living a life of violence and would return to his violent ways when given the chance.
We find nothing in the trial court’s analysis, to suggest that the court acted with a
closed mind.  Accordingly, we will not review the length of the sentence imposed.
7
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgments of the Superior
Court be, and the same hereby are, AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
Justice