Henry du Pont Ridgely

The case involved Juan Lamberty, a Tier II sex offender designated as homeless under Delaware's Sex Offender Registration Statute, who was charged with Failure to Properly Report after missing a required 30-day registration. Lamberty moved to dismiss, arguing that the statute's more frequent registration requirement for homeless offenders violated the Equal Protection Clause and that provisions allowing the State Police Superintendent to designate reporting locations amounted to an improper delegation of legislative power. The Superior Court denied the motion, and Lamberty was convicted. On appeal, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the classification was rationally related to the legitimate state interest in supervising offenders and that the delegation was lawful because the statute required reasonable regulations rather than granting unfettered discretion.

criminal lawcivil rights

The case involved Eric Holmes appealing the Superior Court's denial of his motion for acquittal on a charge of knowingly possessing a firearm under Delaware law. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's ruling after reviewing the briefs and record. The court determined that the State had presented sufficient evidence such that a rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, could find Holmes guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

criminal lawguns

The case involved Freddie Flonnory's appeal from his Superior Court conviction for felony driving under the influence, specifically challenging the denial of his motion to suppress evidence from a warrantless blood draw after a traffic stop. Flonnory argued that Delaware's implied consent statute did not exempt the blood draw from the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement and that the trial court failed to assess whether his consent was voluntary under a totality of the circumstances test. The Delaware Supreme Court held that a blood draw is an invasive search requiring a warrant or valid exception, and that when the State relies on consent, courts must apply a Fourth Amendment totality of the circumstances analysis rather than relying solely on the implied consent statute. Because the Superior Court did not conduct that analysis, the court remanded the case for further proceedings without resolving whether the implied consent statute itself satisfies constitutional requirements.

criminal lawprocedure

This case was an appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court by Samuel Tanner from a ruling of the Family Court in a dispute with Theresa Allen. After reviewing the parties' briefs, the Supreme Court concluded that the Family Court's April 28, 2014 order was correctly decided. The court therefore affirmed the Family Court's judgment in full, adopting the lower court's reasoning without elaboration. The decision resolved the appeal in favor of the appellee.

family law

Orlando Ingram appealed his Superior Court convictions for two counts of first-degree robbery, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, second-degree conspiracy, and resisting arrest stemming from an armed robbery of a Family Dollar store in Dover and his later arrest. Ingram challenged the admission of a handgun and a cigarette pack bearing his thumbprint as evidence, as well as the sufficiency of the evidence linking him to the robbery. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, ruling that the cigarette pack was properly authenticated and relevant forensic evidence while the gun had a sufficient circumstantial connection to the robbery and the defendant; any questions about the items' connection went to the weight of the evidence rather than admissibility. The court also found the overall trial evidence sufficient to support the jury's verdict and that the search of the apartment was valid based on the arrest warrant and consent.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Vincent J. Branson appealing a Court of Chancery decision regarding the estate of Dorothea Branson, where David Branson served as executor. The lower court ruled that Vincent lacked standing to file exceptions in the estate matter and assessed attorney's fees against him. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the judgment on the basis of the Court of Chancery's bench ruling and letter opinion, concluding that the appellant was without standing to file exceptions in the estate proceeding.

family lawprocedure

The case involved Harold Smith appealing the Superior Court's denial of his motion for postconviction relief after being found in violation of probation. Smith, who had pleaded guilty to third-degree rape and was subject to special sex-offender probation conditions banning sexually explicit material, admitted sending a photo of his penis to his estranged wife; she reported it to his probation officer, resulting in the violation finding. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that there is generally no right to counsel at a violation-of-probation hearing absent a colorable claim of innocence, that Smith had conceded the violation, and that the marital-communications privilege would not have barred proof of the violation through other means.

criminal law

This case involves Jerome Miller's appeal from the denial of postconviction relief following his guilty plea to aggravated menacing, third-degree assault, and breach of bail conditions arising from an October 2011 attack on his wife and subsequent violations of a no-contact order. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's rejection of Miller's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and an involuntary plea due to mental health issues. The court reasoned that counsel had valid concerns about Miller's mental health and obtained a psychiatric evaluation confirming competence to stand trial, that Miller's statements during the plea colloquy established the plea was knowing and voluntary, and that the plea waived prior defenses while the sentence remained within statutory limits.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a mortgage foreclosure action brought by Wells Fargo Bank against John and Melissa McCafferty after they defaulted on a 2005 residential mortgage loan by failing to make required monthly payments. The McCaffertys raised defenses including lack of standing, an alleged oral modification agreement under HAMP, and denial of mediation rights, while also filing various motions that were denied by the Superior Court. The Superior Court granted summary judgment to Wells Fargo on liability, finding the mortgage valid and enforceable with no material factual disputes or permissible defenses, then awarded damages after referring the issue to a commissioner. On appeal, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Wells Fargo had standing under the recorded mortgage and statute, no enforceable modification existed, post-default negotiations did not constitute a valid defense, and the McCaffertys were ineligible for mediation because the action predated the relevant 2011 statute and they had not elected into the prior program.

propertyprocedure

Gerald Jones sued The Hertz Corporation and Citigroup Inc. in Justice of the Peace Court for $13,938 in alleged fraudulent car rental charges, resulting in a judgment against him and in favor of Hertz on its $15,000 counterclaim. Jones then filed a de novo appeal in the Court of Common Pleas with a new seven-count complaint seeking over $300,000 in damages, but that court dismissed the appeal under Civil Rule 72.3(f) for violating the mirror image rule by raising issues not presented below. The Superior Court affirmed the dismissal after review, and the Delaware Supreme Court likewise affirmed, holding that the lower courts committed no legal error and that their factual findings were supported by the record and reached through logical reasoning.

procedure

This case involved an appeal by Wife from Family Court orders addressing alimony and the division of marital property, including a condominium and a home equity loan, following the parties' brief marriage and divorce. The Delaware Supreme Court reviewed the record and the Family Court's factual findings and legal conclusions under standards of clear error, de novo review, and abuse of discretion. The Court affirmed the denial of alimony on the ground that Wife failed to establish dependency under the statutory criteria, upheld the valuation and allocation of the condominium and loan after correcting an initial valuation error, and rejected Wife's claims to additional personal property due to insufficient proof. The Court found no merit in the appeal and affirmed the Family Court's judgment in full.

family lawproperty

This case involved a dispute over custody of the parties' five-year-old child after the Family Court had previously issued a protection from abuse order against Father that declined to address custody on a permanent basis. Mother later filed a separate custody petition, which the Family Court granted by default when Father did not participate in the scheduled teleconference hearing despite proper notice. On appeal, Father argued that collateral estoppel barred the custody petition based on the earlier PFA order and that the default judgment was an abuse of discretion. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Family Court's default custody and visitation order, holding that collateral estoppel did not apply because the PFA order expressly permitted either party to file a separate custody petition and that the court did not abuse its discretion in entering default after Father failed to appear.

family law

The case involved Lynell Tucker appealing his Superior Court convictions for first-degree murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, for which he received a life sentence without parole. Tucker argued on appeal that the State had not met its burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was mentally competent to stand trial, relying on one expert's opinion that he lacked the ability to understand the proceedings or assist in his defense. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, concluding that the trial court did not err in finding Tucker competent after weighing competing expert reports and testimony, deferring to the trial court's credibility determinations, and applying the standard that a defendant need only have a rational understanding of the case and ability to consult with counsel.

criminal lawprocedure

In Gillen v. Continental Power Corporation, the plaintiff sued the defendants for breach of an alleged 50/50 partnership agreement regarding the distribution and installation of energy savings devices, as well as related claims of tortious interference, fraud, and defamation. The Superior Court granted summary judgment on three of the claims, and a jury returned a verdict for the defendants on the remaining breach of contract claim after a bifurcated trial on liability. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's judgment, including the denial of a motion for a new trial and an award of $2,997.69 in attorneys' fees and costs to the defendants, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, handling of continuances, or decision not to recuse. The court further reasoned that the fee award was justified because the plaintiff's conduct had caused multiple trial delays and the need for repeated pretrial stipulations.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this case, Ryan McCool was convicted by a Superior Court jury of Aggravated Menacing, Possession of a Deadly Weapon During the Commission of a Felony, and Disorderly Conduct, and he received corresponding sentences including prison time and probation. McCool's defense counsel filed a brief and motion to withdraw under Supreme Court Rule 26(c), stating that a review of the record revealed no arguably appealable issues, and McCool submitted no points for consideration. The State moved to affirm the judgment. After conducting its own review of the record and confirming that defense counsel had conscientiously examined the case, the Delaware Supreme Court concluded that the appeal was wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable issues. The court therefore granted the motion to affirm, affirmed the Superior Court's judgment, and deemed the motion to withdraw moot.

criminal law

The case concerned a mother's appeal from a Family Court order terminating her parental rights to three children after the Division of Family Services took emergency custody following the death of a sibling and findings of dependency and neglect. The Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed the termination, holding that clear and convincing evidence showed the mother had failed to complete her case plan requirements, including consistent visitation, stable housing and employment, parenting classes, and mental health evaluation, despite over a year in DFS custody. The court further found that termination served the children's best interests, given their significant trauma-related mental health needs and the mother's ongoing noncompliance and periods of incarceration. The decision applied the two-step statutory analysis for termination of parental rights under Delaware law, reviewing the record for factual support and legal correctness without finding abuse of discretion.

family law

The case involved Arthur Carter's direct appeal from his Superior Court convictions for aggravated menacing, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and possession of a firearm by a person prohibited, for which he was sentenced as a habitual offender to 35 years in prison. Carter's appellate counsel filed a no-merit brief under Supreme Court Rule 26(c), asserting no arguable appealable issues after reviewing the record, while Carter raised claims that his confrontation rights were violated because the victim did not testify, the evidence was insufficient without physical proof of a gun, his police statement was involuntary due to intoxication, and the State committed a Brady violation by not disclosing the victim's recantation letters. The Delaware Supreme Court conducted its own review of the record and applicable law, determining that the evidence supported the convictions, the victim's statements were properly admitted through other witnesses or recordings, Carter's statement was admissible as a party admission regardless of voluntariness challenges, the recantation letters were part of the public record and not suppressed, and no plain error occurred. The court therefore granted the State's motion to affirm and upheld the Superior Court's judgment, finding the appeal wholly without merit.

criminal lawguns

This case involved a dispute between the Lockwoods and Louis J. Capano III arising from a failed real estate development venture through North Milton Development Group, LLC, including loans from Wilmington Trust Company and a Contribution Agreement that addressed reciprocal contribution rights among guarantors if one or more paid more than their share. The Superior Court had granted partial summary judgment to Capano on his claim for contribution after he made loan payments, but the Delaware Supreme Court reversed that ruling. The court found a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the signatures of all four principals were a condition precedent to the formation of the Contribution Agreement, which precluded summary judgment for either side. The matter was remanded for further proceedings, including the possibility of equitable claims if the contract was not formed.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

Thomas E. Noble, indicted in Superior Court on twenty-five counts of dealing in child pornography and proceeding pro se with standby counsel, petitioned the Delaware Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus. He requested a stay of proceedings, granting of his motions, reduction of bail, replacement of counsel, and assignment of a different judge. The court dismissed the petition, explaining that mandamus is an extraordinary remedy issued only when a trial court arbitrarily fails or refuses to perform a clear duty and the petitioner has no other adequate remedy. Noble did not show that the Superior Court had failed in any such duty, and the right to appeal provides a complete remedy for the issues raised.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Juan Torres, a construction worker injured on the job in 2006, appealing the termination of his total disability benefits under Delaware's workers' compensation system. After the employer petitioned to end benefits in 2012, the Industrial Accident Board held a hearing with medical testimony, vocational evidence, and a surveillance video, then ruled that Torres was no longer totally disabled and was not a displaced worker, though it awarded partial disability benefits and approved ongoing medical treatment. The Superior Court affirmed, and the Delaware Supreme Court likewise affirmed, holding that the Board's credibility determinations and findings were supported by substantial evidence and free from legal error. The court noted that weighing conflicting medical opinions and resolving evidentiary disputes are functions reserved to the Board.

labor & employment