Nieves v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE MANUEL NIEVES, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 221, 2012 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County Cr. ID No. 0107022700 Submitted: June 6, 2012 Decided: August 9, 2012 Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices. ORDER 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) 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-ofcourt 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. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
