Title: Feliciano v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 169, 2011
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: October 5, 2011

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
MIGUEL FELICIANO,  
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§  No. 169, 2011 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§  Court Below – Superior Court 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§  in and for New Castle County 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§  Cr. I.D. No. 1009025794 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
     Submitted:  September 28, 2011 
 
 
 
 
        Decided:  October 5, 2011 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 5th day of October 2011, it appears to the Court that: 
 
1) 
The defendant-appellant, Miguel Feliciano (“Feliciano”), was 
indicted on one count of Carrying a Concealed Deadly Weapon (“CCDW”) 
in violation of Title 11, section 1442 of the Delaware Code.  Following a 
one-day jury trial, Feliciano was found guilty.  He was sentenced to two 
years at Level V, suspended after ninety days at Level V for one year at 
supervision Level III. 
 
2) 
Feliciano has raised one claim in this direct appeal.  He argues 
that section 1442 was applied unconstitutionally, under the Delaware 
Constitution, to the facts of his case.  Article I, section 20 of the Delaware 
2 
 
Constitution provides citizens the “[r]ight to keep and bear arms for the 
defense of self, family, home and State[.]”  Therefore, Feliciano submits that 
the Delaware Constitution contains an implicit right to carry concealed 
weapons on one’s own property.  Feliciano asserts that because he had a 
right to carry a concealed weapon inside his own home, his conviction must 
be reversed.   
 
3) 
We have concluded that Feliciano’s argument fails for two 
independent reasons.  First, since he did not raise this issue in the Superior 
Court, it is waived on appeal because he has failed to establish plain error.  
Second, the record reflects that Feliciano was not in his home.  Therefore, 
the legal right he asserts is not supported by the predicate facts that would be 
necessary to decide his claim on the merits.   
 
4) 
Sometime prior to September of 2010, Ainsley Ashman 
(“Ashman”), the landlord of a rental property located at 2513 North Market 
Street in Wilmington, Delaware, informed his tenant, Feliciano, that he was 
being evicted and needed to move out of the house he was renting from 
Ashman.  Concerned that Feliciano would not leave the residence, Ashman 
commenced formal eviction proceedings through the Justice of the Peace 
Court.  On the morning of September 22, 2010, Kevin Gaines (“Constable 
Gaines”), a constable for the Justice of the Peace Court, posted an eviction 
3 
 
notice at 2513 North Market Street. The eviction notice required all 
occupants of that residence to vacate the premises within twenty-four hours.   
5) 
Six days after the posting of that notice, on the morning of 
September 28, 2010, Constable Gaines went to the residence with Ashman 
to ensure that the residence was clear.  Feliciano testified that he was not 
living at the 2513 North Market Street house on September 28th.  He had 
moved out of the rental property one to two weeks earlier.  He testified that 
he was residing with his mother in Bear, Delaware, on the date of his arrest.   
6) 
At the time that Ashman and Constable Gaines went to 2513 
North Market Street on September 28, 2010, Feliciano “should have been 
out” and did not have permission to be on the property.  Upon arriving at the 
house at 2513 North Market Street on September 28th, Constable Gaines 
knocked on the front door several times.  When no one answered, Ashman 
used his key to unlock the door and allowed Constable Gaines to enter the 
residence.   
7) 
Once inside, Constable Gaines proceeded to the top floor, 
where he observed doors to four different rooms, three of which were open.  
Constable Gaines checked the three rooms with open doors and then 
knocked several times on the closed door, which was the door to the master 
bedroom.   While knocking on the door, Constable Gaines repeatedly yelled, 
4 
 
“State Constable, State Constable.”  As Constable Gaines stood at the door, 
it was opened by Feliciano. 
 
8) 
Constable Gaines asked whether there was anyone else in the 
residence.  As Constable Gaines was speaking with Feliciano, he noticed 
Feliciano seemed preoccupied.  Constable Gaines observed Feliciano lift up 
the white t-shirt he was wearing, remove a gun from the waistband of his 
jeans, and toss the gun away from him.  The gun bounced onto some sofa 
cushions which were on the floor and then landed on the floor of the 
bedroom.   
9) 
Upon seeing Feliciano remove the gun, Constable Gaines drew 
his weapon, ordered Feliciano to the ground, and radioed Wilmington Police 
Department dispatch.  When officers arrived at the residence, Officer Kreysa 
placed Feliciano in handcuffs.  Officers then went to the area indicated by 
Constable Gaines and located a 22-caliber revolver, fully loaded with six 
rounds of ammunition, between the sofa cushions on the floor.   
10) 
After discovering the revolver, Officer Kreysa read Feliciano 
his Miranda rights.  Feliciano agreed to speak with officers.  Feliciano 
admitted to Officer Kreysa that he knew he had been evicted and only 
returned to the property to pack and collect some belongings.  When 
5 
 
questioned about the gun in his possession, Feliciano claimed that he had 
found it in the residence a week earlier and decided to keep it for protection.   
 
11) 
At trial, Feliciano testified that he placed the gun on the couch 
cushions located on the floor while he was taking a nap.  Feliciano testified 
that he did not possess the handgun when Gaines entered the master 
bedroom.  Feliciano testified that when Gaines entered the bedroom he 
noticed the firearm lying on the sofa cushion.  This prompted Gaines to draw 
his weapon and order Feliciano not to move.   
 
12) 
Feliciano’s claim that his carrying a concealed weapon 
conviction violates a state constitutional right guaranteed by Article I, § 20 
of the Delaware Constitution is made for the first time in this direct appeal.  
Properly preserved claims of constitutional error are subject to de novo 
appellate review.1  Claims of constitutional violations that are not fairly 
presented to the trial court are reviewed only for plain error.2  “Under 
Delaware law, plain error occurs when an ‘error [is] so clearly prejudicial to 
substantial rights as to jeopardize the fairness and integrity of the trial 
                                          
 
1 See Wilkerson v. State, 953 A.2d 152, 156 (Del. 2008); Bentley v. State, 930 A.2d 866, 
871 (Del. 2007). 
2 Williams v. State, 796 A.2d 1281, 1284 (Del. 2002). 
6 
 
process . . . [and is a] material defec[t] which [is] apparent on the face of the 
record [and is] basic, serious and fundamental . . . .”3 
 
13) 
In the Superior Court, Feliciano argued that he did not carry a 
concealed deadly weapon: 
 
The one issue in this trial, what this thing will focus 
about, is he’s being charged with Carrying a Concealed Deadly 
Weapon, that he hid it on his person so nobody else could see, 
and that was done with intent.  He intentionally had it on his 
body where no one else could see, and the evidence is going to 
show that Mr. Feliciano did not carry that weapon concealed. 
 
 
. . . when the constable came, that the weapon was over 
on a pillow away from Mr. Feliciano, that Mr. Feliciano did not 
have a weapon on his person hidden . . .  
 
 
14) 
In this appeal, for the first time, Feliciano claims that Article I, 
section 20 of the Delaware Constitution4 guarantees a person’s right to carry 
a concealed weapon in one’s own home.  He argues that Delaware’s criminal 
concealed weapon statute (section 1442) did not prohibit his specific 
behavior and that his conviction violated the Delaware Constitution.  
Feliciano had the opportunity to raise that issue in the Superior Court, but 
failed to do so before, during, or after trial.   
 
15) 
The record does not permit this Court to address the merits of 
Feliciano’s claim that the Delaware Constitutional right to bear arms 
                                          
 
3 Id. (quoting Wainwright v. State, 504 A.2d 1096, 1100 (Del. 1986)). 
4 “A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and 
State, and for hunting and recreational use.” 
7 
 
restricts enforcement of Delaware’s concealed carry statute, i.e., that there is 
a Delaware Constitutional “home possession” exception.  On the morning of 
September 28, 2010, the residence at 2513 North Market Street, 
Wilmington, Delaware, was no longer Feliciano’s “home.”  According to 
Feliciano, he was residing with his mother in Bear, Delaware, on the date of 
his arrest and was at the Market Street address that day only to retrieve some 
items he had left there before he was evicted.  During his cross-examination 
at trial, Feliciano testified that he no longer considered 2513 North Market 
Street his “home”: 
Prosecutor: I get that.  What I don’t understand is you moved 
out of the house [2513 North Market Street] two 
weeks prior to September 28th, correct? 
 
Feliciano: 
Uh-huh. 
 
Prosecutor: Not your house anymore, and you moved out, 
right? 
 
Feliciano: 
That’s correct. 
 
*   *   * 
 
Prosecutor: You didn’t live in Wilmington anymore, correct? 
 
Feliciano: 
Correct. 
 
16) 
We will assume, without deciding, that the Delaware 
Constitution permits carrying a concealed deadly weapon inside one’s home.  
That assumption does not help Feliciano because the record reflects that 
8 
 
Feliciano was not in his home.5  Supreme Court Rule 8 limits this Court’s 
appellate review to “questions fairly presented to the trial court . . . .”6  
Although the rule includes an exception “in the interests of justice,”7 the 
record facts do not support an application of that exception in Feliciano’s 
appeal.  Feliciano has failed to carry his burden of demonstrating plain 
error.8 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment 
of the Superior Court is affirmed. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                          
 
5 Dickerson v. State, 975 A.2d 791, 796 (Del. 2009). 
6 Supr. Ct. R. 8. 
7 Id. 
8 Williams v. State, 796 A.2d at 1284.