Randy J. Holland

This case involved a shareholder class action brought by the City of Miami General Employees' & Sanitation Employees' Retirement Trust challenging disclosures in proxy materials related to a corporate transaction involving Nabors Industries Ltd. The suit alleged that certain omitted details about a go-shop process and a bid received during that process rendered the proxy materially misleading. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Chancery's judgment in favor of the defendants. The court reasoned that even with sharpened arguments on appeal, the plaintiff failed to plead facts supporting an inference that the omitted information was material, given the broad outreach in the go-shop, the investment bank's incentives, and the lack of evidence that the bid was financially superior or would have led to a better deal.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case was an appeal by employee Victoria Fountain against employer McDonald's from a Superior Court of Delaware ruling in a dispute between the parties. The Delaware Supreme Court considered the matter on the parties' briefs and determined that the lower court's final judgment should stand. The Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's decision solely on the basis of the reasoning set forth in that court's June 30, 2016 opinion. The order was issued on March 22, 2017, with a shortened period for any reargument motions.

labor & employment

This case involved a debt collection action by a nursing home against a former patient, Rhonda Daniel, and her husband, Joseph Poli. After Joseph filed an answer on Rhonda's behalf along with a durable power of attorney and affidavit, the Superior Court entered a default judgment against Rhonda for failing to appear and then granted summary judgment against Joseph based on that judgment. Joseph moved to vacate the default under Rule 60(b), but the Superior Court denied relief. The Delaware Supreme Court reversed, holding that Joseph's responsive filing with the POA qualified as an appearance under the court rules, making entry of the default a mistake that warranted vacating the judgments and remanding for further proceedings.

procedure

This case involved an appeal by Mary Street from a Delaware Family Court order addressing cross-petitions for contempt filed by Street and Charles Butler. The Family Court had ruled in Butler's favor on the contempt issues and determined he was entitled to attorney fees, but had not yet set the amount of those fees. The Delaware Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as interlocutory because the Family Court order was not final, and Street had not followed the procedures in Supreme Court Rule 42 for seeking review of a non-final judgment. The Court explained that its jurisdiction is generally limited to final orders absent compliance with Rule 42, and the dismissal was without prejudice to refiling once a final judgment is entered.

family lawprocedure

In this case, Paul Brunhammer was indicted in Delaware in 2010 on charges of rape and sexual solicitation of a child while he was serving a sentence in New Jersey. After moving to dismiss the indictment in 2015 on speedy trial grounds (which was denied) and being returned to Delaware in 2016, he pled guilty to a lesser charge of third-degree rape; he was sentenced to ten years in prison. On direct appeal, Brunhammer challenged the indictment and sentence based on the alleged speedy trial violation, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of counsel. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's judgment, holding that Brunhammer's knowing and voluntary guilty plea waived his right to raise pre-plea constitutional claims such as the speedy trial issue, as confirmed by the plea colloquy and forms. The court declined to consider the ineffective counsel claim for the first time on appeal and granted the State's motion to affirm.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved Freddy L. Flonnory's appeal from a Superior Court order that summarily dismissed his fourth motion for postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. The court reasoned that the 2014 amendments to Rule 61, which added requirements for second or subsequent motions under subsection (d)(2), applied because Flonnory's motion was filed in June 2016 after the amendments' effective date. The motion failed to plead with particularity either new evidence creating a strong inference of actual innocence or a new retroactive rule of constitutional law, making it procedurally barred under Rule 61(i)(2).

criminal lawprocedure

Christopher R. Desmond appealed from the Superior Court's denial of his motion to vacate prior denials of postconviction relief regarding his 1992 convictions on multiple counts including first-degree robbery. Desmond's motion sought to raise a self-representation claim that had already been rejected in earlier proceedings. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the denial, holding that Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 provides the exclusive remedy for setting aside a conviction and that this eleventh filing was subject to summary dismissal for failing to meet the pleading requirements of Rule 61(d)(2) for successive motions, which demand particularized new evidence of actual innocence or a new retroactive constitutional rule.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, Tyrell Mackey was indicted in Delaware on charges including possession of a firearm by a person prohibited and theft of a firearm. He entered a guilty plea to those counts, stipulated to habitual offender status, and received a sentence of twelve years of incarceration plus probation. Mackey's counsel filed a no-merit brief under Supreme Court Rule 26(c) asserting no arguable appealable issues, and Mackey raised none himself. The Delaware Supreme Court reviewed the record, the brief, and the State's response, conducted its own examination of the proceedings, and concluded there were no nonfrivolous issues for appeal.

criminal law

This case is a lawyer disciplinary proceeding against Delaware attorney S. Harold Lankenau, who was already suspended from practice for eighteen months starting in February 2016. The Board on Professional Responsibility found that Lankenau had knowingly concealed additional ethical violations during his prior disciplinary hearing, including failures of candor to the tribunal under Rule 3.3(a)(1) and related misconduct under Rules 8.4(c) and 8.4(d), after he admitted the facts in the petition and evidence supported the charges. The Board recommended extending the suspension by six additional months as the appropriate sanction, weighing aggravating factors like prior violations and lack of candor against limited mitigation. The Delaware Supreme Court reviewed the Board's report along with objections from the Office of Disciplinary Counsel and Lankenau, found the recommendation appropriate, and accepted it in full. The Court therefore ordered that Lankenau's suspension be extended by six months, after which he must reapply for admission.

procedure

In Tymes v. State, the defendant was convicted by a Superior Court jury of second-degree burglary, two counts of theft from a senior, second-degree conspiracy, receiving stolen property, and criminal mischief after evidence showed he and an accomplice broke into a home and stole electronics and other items, which they were later seen with at a convenience store. Tymes appealed, arguing that the trial court's jury instruction on the rebuttable presumption of possession of recently stolen goods was constitutionally defective because it improperly shifted the burden to the defense by allowing an inference of guilt without requiring the State to prove participation beyond possession. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, concluding that the instruction was proper as it clearly presented the inference as merely permissive, not mandatory, and explicitly noted that the defendant was not required to testify or present any evidence to explain the possession. The court determined that the instruction matched a longstanding approved model and correctly stated the law when read as a whole.

criminal lawprocedure

Antonio Feliciano appealed the Superior Court's denial of his first motion for postconviction relief under Criminal Rule 61, which alleged ineffective assistance by his trial counsel for failing to file a suppression motion, effectively cross-examine the victim, subpoena an eyewitness, and address his mental health issues. Feliciano had been convicted after a bench trial of second-degree burglary and theft, sentenced as a habitual offender, and had his convictions affirmed on direct appeal. On appeal, he pursued only the failure-to-subpoena claim, waiving the others. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the denial, holding that the Superior Court's thorough review, including a competency evaluation, correctly found no deficient performance by counsel or prejudice to the outcome.

criminal lawprocedure

The case John Doe No. 1 v. Coupe was an appeal by two plaintiffs from a Chancery Court ruling against the Commissioner of the Delaware Department of Correction, centered on an Ex Post Facto constitutional challenge. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's final judgment in a brief order. The court reached this outcome by relying on its earlier decision in Hassett v. State and applying principles of stare decisis.

criminal lawprocedure

In Edwards v. State, Harold Edwards was convicted after a jury trial of two counts of first-degree robbery and three counts of shoplifting arising from thefts of cigarettes from convenience stores; he received a sentence of fifteen years of unsuspended incarceration. On direct appeal, his counsel filed a no-merit brief and motion to withdraw under Supreme Court Rule 26(c), asserting no arguable issues existed after reviewing the record. Edwards raised five claims, including improper joinder of charges, inadequate jury instructions on physical injury, failure to preserve evidence, insufficient evidence, and lack of jury diversity. The Delaware Supreme Court conducted its own review, found no plain error or meritorious issues in any claim, and affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment while granting the motion to affirm.

criminal lawprocedure

In Miller v. State, the defendant appealed the Superior Court's denial of his motion under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a) to correct an allegedly illegal sentence. Miller had been convicted in 2005 of six counts of first-degree rape and one count of continuous sexual abuse of a child, resulting in a 92-year prison term that was affirmed on direct appeal. His latest motion claimed the sentence was illegal due to double jeopardy violations from multiple convictions for the same acts, warrantless seizure of DNA evidence, and cruel and unusual punishment based on his claimed innocence. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the denial, holding that Rule 35(a) permits only correction of illegal sentences and does not allow re-examination of trial errors or challenges properly raised under Rule 61. The court further found no merit to the double jeopardy claim because the victim testified to six distinct instances of sexual assault.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned a dispute between Patricia A. McGlaughlin, successor trustee and beneficiary of the Hercules Living Trust, and Andrew P. Farren, executor of the Estate of Bennie P. Farren, regarding the administration or distribution of assets connected to the trust and estate. McGlaughlin appealed final rulings issued by the Delaware Court of Chancery in the matter. The Delaware Supreme Court reviewed the appeal on the briefs and after oral argument, then affirmed the Court of Chancery's judgment in full. The affirmance was based solely on the reasoning set forth in the lower court's January 19, 2016 opinion and its subsequent orders dated February 12, July 13, and August 5, 2016.

property

The case involved an appeal by LTR Properties, LLC against Pizzadili Partners, LLC and the Kent County Board of Adjustment concerning a decision from the board of adjustment. The Superior Court had previously issued an opinion on August 26, 2016, that upheld the board's action. After reviewing the parties' briefs, the Delaware Supreme Court concluded that the Superior Court's final judgment should stand for the reasons set forth in its August opinion. The Supreme Court therefore affirmed the judgment in a brief order without additional analysis.

propertybusiness & regulatory

Charles Foster petitioned the Delaware Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to compel the Court of Chancery to remove his former guardian, Karen Sanders-Kane, from a mobile home they had shared and to restore his possession, alleging she had fraudulently acquired ownership while serving as his guardian. The Court of Chancery had already removed Sanders-Kane as guardian following an investigation by the Public Guardian, with Foster's mother expected to petition as successor guardian, though no such petition had yet been filed. The Supreme Court denied the mandamus petition, reasoning that the lower court had not arbitrarily failed or refused to perform a legal duty, that mandamus cannot compel discretionary acts or dictate docket control, and that Foster or a successor guardian had other adequate legal remedies available to address the fraud claim.

family lawpropertyprocedure

In Beal v. State, Ronald Beal appealed a Superior Court order denying his motion for appointment of counsel in postconviction proceedings. The Delaware Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, explaining that the Delaware Constitution permits review only of final judgments in criminal cases. The Court determined that the order denying counsel was interlocutory and not appealable as a collateral order prior to a final judgment on any postconviction motion. Beal's response to the jurisdictional notice addressed the merits but did not address the interlocutory issue.

criminal lawprocedure

This case is an appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court from the Court of Chancery's dismissal of Weih Steve Chang's complaint against the Children's Advocacy Center of Delaware, Inc. and related defendants. Chang failed to file his opening brief and appendix by the court-imposed deadline of November 14, 2016, despite prior extensions, and he sought stays of the appeal to pursue related federal litigation and other relief such as access to case files and a retrial. The court struck Chang's additional motions as nonconforming because they sought relief already denied or not properly raised, and it issued a notice to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed. Chang's response repeated requests for a stay that had been denied earlier. The Supreme Court therefore dismissed the appeal under Supreme Court Rule 29(b) for failure to prosecute.

procedure

In Miller v. State, Robert Miller appealed from the Superior Court's October 18, 2016 order denying his motion for postconviction relief in a criminal case. The Delaware Supreme Court received his notice of appeal on December 9, 2016, after the 30-day filing deadline under Supreme Court Rule 6(a)(iv) had passed on November 17, 2016. Miller attributed the delay to limited access to the prison law library and slow mail delivery at his facility, but the court held that such circumstances did not excuse the untimeliness because the jurisdictional requirement for timely filing applies strictly to pro se prisoners and can only be excused if caused by court-related personnel. Finding no such attribution in the record, the court dismissed the appeal under Supreme Court Rule 29(b).

criminal lawprocedure