Title: Flowers v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
GEARL FLOWERS,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
           Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 33, 2012 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 1008025982 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
                                         Submitted: July 20, 2012 
 
 
 
 
   Decided:  September 5, 2012 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 5th day of September 2012, upon consideration of the briefs of 
the parties and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Gearl Flowers, acting pro se,1 filed an 
appeal from his January 25, 2011 Superior Court convictions.  For the 
reasons that follow, we conclude that the Superior Court’s judgments should 
be affirmed. 
                                                 
1 Flowers filed an affidavit in this Court requesting that his counsel be permitted to 
withdraw and that he be permitted to represent himself in his direct appeal.  Supr. Ct. R. 
26(d) (iii).  Following a hearing in the Superior Court in which Flowers was found to 
have voluntarily waived his right to counsel, this Court granted Flowers’ request to 
represent himself in his direct appeal.  Flowers v. State, Del. Supr., No. 33, 2012, Berger, 
J. (Apr. 10, 2012). 
 
2
 
(2) 
In October 2010, Flowers was indicted on charges of Burglary 
in the Third Degree, Theft and Criminal Mischief.  In January 2011, Flowers 
went to a jury trial and was convicted of Burglary in the Third Degree and 
Theft.2  Flowers was sentenced to a total of four years of Level V 
incarceration, to be suspended after two years and six months for Level III 
probation.  
 
(3) 
The following evidence was presented at trial.  In the early 
morning of August 31, 2010, the executive director of Congregation Beth 
Shalom in Wilmington, Delaware, received a call alerting him that the alarm 
in the basement of the synagogue had sounded.  When he arrived at the 
synagogue, two officers with the City of Wilmington Police Department 
were already on-site.  As the group entered the building, they heard someone 
running down the back steps near the kitchen in the direction of an exit door.  
After one of the police officers received a message that someone had been 
taken into custody outside the building, the group went back outside and saw 
that another officer had a man, later identified as Gearl Flowers, in custody.  
Inside Flowers’ backpack were several sets of headphones, which were later 
identified as belonging to the synagogue. 
                                                 
2 Between trial and sentencing, Flowers, acting pro se, filed motions for a new trial and 
for postconviction relief in which he alleged that he personally knew two of the jurors 
and that both were biased against him.  Following two evidentiary hearings, the Superior 
Court concluded that Flowers’ claim was meritless.   
 
3
 
(4) 
In this appeal from his convictions, Flowers claims that a) he 
was denied his right to six peremptory challenges during jury selection; b) 
two of the jurors were biased against him; and c) the trial judge was biased 
against him. 
 
(5) 
Flowers’ first claim is that he was denied his right to six 
peremptory challenges during jury selection.  Underlying Flowers’ claim is 
his apparent belief that parties are required to exercise six peremptory 
challenges at a criminal jury trial in the Superior Court.  Flowers’ belief is 
incorrect.  Pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 24(b), the State and the 
defendant each may make as many as six peremptory challenges to 
prospective jurors.  There is no requirement that all six challenges be 
exercised.  In this case, the trial transcript reflects that the defense did not 
exercise any peremptory challenges and instead indicated that it was content 
with the jury panel.  There was nothing improper in so doing.  The trial 
transcript further reflects that the Superior Court followed all proper 
procedures during jury selection.  We, therefore, conclude that Flowers’ first 
claim is without merit.         
 
(6) 
Flowers’ second claim is that two of the jurors who sat on his 
case were biased against him.  The record in this case reflects that, following 
his convictions and prior to sentencing, Flowers filed motions for a new trial 
 
4
and for postconviction relief.  In his motions, Flowers claimed that two 
jurors were personally known to him and were biased against him.  The 
Superior Court then held two evidentiary hearings to determine if there was 
any factual basis for Flowers’ claims.  Based on the record developed at the 
two hearings, the Superior Court determined that there had been no defect in 
the composition of the jury and no reason to disturb the jury’s verdict.  
Based upon the Superior Court’s findings following two evidentiary 
hearings, there is no factual support for Flowers’ claim of juror bias.  We, 
therefore, conclude that Flowers’ second claim is without merit.   
 
(7) 
Flowers’ third, and final, claim is that the trial judge was biased 
against him and should have recused herself.  As grounds for his claim, 
Flowers cites to the judge’s denial of his various motions.  In order to 
succeed on his claim of bias, Flowers must demonstrate that the judge had a 
personal, rather than a judicial, bias against him.3  The fact that a judge has 
made rulings adverse to a party is not, in and of itself, evidence of bias.4  We 
have reviewed the record in this case, including the trial transcript and find 
no evidence to support Flowers’ claim of bias on the part of the Superior 
Court judge.  We, therefore, conclude that Flowers’ third claim also is 
without merit.   
                                                 
3 Los v. Los, 595 A.2d 381, 384 (Del. 1991). 
4 Petition of Wittrock, 649 A.2d 1053, 1054 (Del. 1994). 
 
5
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgments of the 
Superior Court are AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice