State v. Flowers, 9808000280A

Background

Damone Flowers was convicted in 2002 of first‑degree murder and a felony firearm offense and sentenced to life plus ten years; conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.
Flowers has repeatedly litigated collateral challenges: multiple Rule 61 (postconviction) motions, a federal habeas petition, and motions to compel Brady materials; prior Rule 61 litigation included counsel and evidentiary development leading to a partially favorable report that was later reversed on appeal and vacated on remand.
In 2013–2016 proceedings the court considered claims that taped out‑of‑court statements from several witnesses (Mayo, Bazemore, Duncan, Bartley, Swanson) were potentially exculpatory or that deals with witnesses were undisclosed; some tapes were produced and reviewed during earlier postconviction litigation.
Flowers filed a Fourth Motion for Postconviction Relief asserting multiple Brady claims and a cumulative prejudice claim, and concurrently sought appointment of counsel for this successive motion.
The Commissioner concluded the Fourth Motion is time‑barred under Superior Court Crim. R. 61(i)(1), is a successive Rule 61 filing barred by Rule 61(i)(2), and that Flowers failed to plead a recognized exception (lack of jurisdiction, new retroactive constitutional rule, or new evidence showing actual innocence).
The Commissioner therefore recommended summary dismissal of the Fourth Motion and denial of appointment of counsel, finding Flowers did not show new, noncumulative evidence that would probably change the outcome at a new trial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of Rule 61 motion	State: Fourth motion filed more than 12 years after direct appeal mandate and is untimely	Flowers: Brady claims overcome procedural bars (argued generally)	Motion is untimely and barred under Rule 61(i)(1)
Successive‑motion bar	State: Subsequent Rule 61 motions are summarily dismissed absent meeting specified exceptions	Flowers: Claims relate back to earlier motions and raise Brady violations warranting review	Successive‑motion bar applies; Flowers did not meet exceptions under Rule 61(i)(2)
Waiver / prior adjudication	State: Grounds were available or previously litigated in earlier motions and are therefore waived or adjudicated	Flowers: New counsel/investigator uncovered tapes and statements after earlier filings	Claims were previously available or adjudicated; thus waived or barred
Actual‑innocence/new‑evidence exception	State: Flowers failed to plead new evidence with particularity showing strong inference of actual innocence	Flowers: Asserts tapes and witness deals are newly discovered Brady evidence	Flowers did not satisfy the three‑part test for new evidence and failed to show probability of different result; exception not met

Key Cases Cited

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose materially exculpatory evidence)
Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552 (Del. 1990) (procedural rules governing collateral attack timeliness)
Downes v. State, 771 A.2d 289 (Del. 2001) (standard for new‑evidence actual‑innocence exception to collateral bars)
Hicks v. State, 913 A.2d 1189 (Del. 2006) (discussion of standards for postconviction relief and procedural waivers)