Title: Mayes v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
TYREEK EVANS MAYES,  
 
Defendant-Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
Plaintiff-Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 682, 2013 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below:  Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  CR. ID No. 1111012229 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: September 10, 2014 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
September 11, 2014 
 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
(1) 
This 11th day of September 2014, upon consideration of the briefs and 
record on appeal, we conclude that the judgment of the Superior Court should be 
affirmed.  On appeal, the only argument made by the appellant is that the evidence 
against him was insufficient to support his convictions for, among other things, 
robberies that were committed against persons delivering pizzas.  The delivery 
persons were lured to the site of the robberies by the placement of orders from 
various phone numbers and were robbed at what appeared to be gunpoint when 
they showed up with the requested pies and other food.  The robbers tried to 
conceal their faces.  Because he did not first move for a judgment of acquittal, the 
appellant did not fairly present his current argument to the Superior Court and 
therefore we can only reverse if there was plain error.1  Rather than rely upon the 
appellant’s procedural failure, however, the State has addressed the merits of the 
case and argued that there was ample evidence on which the jury could have based 
its decision to find the appellant guilty on the counts for which he was convicted.   
(2) 
Having reviewed the record carefully, we conclude that the 
appellant’s argument has no merit because the evidence against him was 
substantial and included, among other things: (i) a pizza order placed in the 
appellant’s name in connection with one of the robberies; and (ii) the appellant’s 
arrest in a blue van that had been in the vicinity of several of the robberies and that 
contained information about multiple pizza shops, numerous cell phones, and BB 
guns resembling semi-automatic pistols.  The appellant was arrested in the blue 
van in the company of a co-conspirator, who gave testimony linking the appellant 
to the robberies and whose mother owned the blue van.  Victims of the robberies 
also testified that they had been robbed by two men whose respective sizes 
matched that of the co-conspirator and the appellant.  In addition, the manager of 
the apartment complex in which the robberies occurred testified that the appellant 
had been frequenting the complex in a blue van.  This is only some of the evidence 
linking the appellant to the crimes of which he was convicted, and the overall 
record is clearly sufficient to meet the applicable standard, which requires us to 
                                                 
1 Monroe v. State, 652 A.2d 560 (Del. 1995).  
uphold the jury verdict so long as “any rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence 
in the light most favorable to the State, could find the defendant guilty beyond a 
reasonable doubt.”2  
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the JUDGMENT of 
convictions of the Superior Court of December 13, 2013 is AFFIRMED.    
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
                                                 
2 Robertson v. State, 596 A.2d 1345, 1355 (Del. 1991).