Leo E. Strine

This case involves an appeal by Linda Sawyer from a Family Court order terminating her parental rights in her eleven-year-old son. The Department of Services for Children, Youth and Their Families had taken custody after an incident of the mother's severe intoxication while caring for the child, leading to findings of dependency based on her unstable housing, alcohol dependency, mental health issues, and failure to complete a reunification case plan. The Family Court concluded that termination was in the child's best interests after the mother did not demonstrate compliance with key plan elements such as sobriety, employment, and stable housing. On appeal, the mother's counsel filed a no-merit brief under Supreme Court Rule 26.1(c), and the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the termination, finding no abuse of discretion in the lower court's factual findings or legal application and determining the appeal lacked merit.

family law

Maurice Land was convicted of first-degree robbery and related charges for robbing a Dollar General store, based on surveillance video, his arrest nearby wearing matching clothing, and the clerk's identification. Land sought postconviction relief, arguing that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to move to sever his trial from his co-defendants'. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's denial of relief, holding that counsel was not ineffective because a severance motion would have been denied given the lack of antagonistic defenses or other severance factors, and that Land suffered no prejudice due to the overwhelming evidence of his guilt.

criminal lawprocedure

Leon Powell, who was convicted of first-degree murder in 1983 and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole, filed a motion in Superior Court seeking production of his complete sentencing order to complete an application for commutation. The Superior Court provided Powell with the criminal docket showing his sentence and denied the motion as moot. On appeal, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed, ruling that the Board of Pardons Checklist explicitly requires applicants to submit both certified court dockets and sentencing orders, so the docket alone did not satisfy the requirement. The case was remanded for the Superior Court to provide Powell with a certified copy of the sentencing order.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a post-divorce dispute between Amy Louise Simpson and Calvin G. Simpson over the division of household goods under a 2016 Family Court property division order that required use of the two-list method. After the wife filed petitions alleging the husband's noncompliance, the Family Court resolved the issues at a 2017 hearing by assigning the lists and later denied the wife's motions for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b), a new trial under Rule 59(a), and reargument under Rule 59(e). The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Family Court did not err in finding a lack of excusable neglect by the wife's counsel, no likelihood of a different outcome on the underlying petition, substantial prejudice to the husband from reopening the matter years after separation, and no extraordinary circumstances warranting relief. The court noted that the lists had overlapping items due to the husband's lack of counsel at the time but that the wife had delayed in addressing the issue and her counsel had admitted receiving the lists earlier.

family lawpropertyprocedure

In Grim v. State, the Delaware Supreme Court reviewed an appeal from Cody Grim challenging his 2019 Superior Court sentence for violating probation on multiple prior theft and burglary convictions. Grim argued that conflicts of interest existed with the presiding judge and a probation officer, and that the imposed sentence of two years at Level V incarceration plus six months of Level IV home confinement exceeded the statutory maximum. The court affirmed the Superior Court's judgment, holding that Grim's failure to provide a transcript of the VOP hearing prevented review of the conflict claims, which were also waived for not being fairly presented below. The court further reasoned that the sentence complied with Delaware law, as the Superior Court could impose the remaining Level V time from the original sentence and add the required six-month transition period under 11 Del. C. § 4204(l).

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute over guardianship of three children, with the key issue being whether the youngest child, Grant, was dependent such that guardianship should be awarded to his paternal grandparents rather than remaining with his mother or being granted to his maternal grandmother. The Delaware Supreme Court reversed the Family Court's order granting guardianship of Grant to the paternal grandparents. The core reasoning was that the Family Court's factual findings were insufficient to establish dependency under the relevant statute, as the mother's recent employment, clean drug screens, and involvement in Grant's care during a temporary placement with the grandparents did not meet the threshold for finding the child dependent.

family law

The case was Radee Prince's direct appeal from his Superior Court conviction for attempted manslaughter and other crimes after a jury found him guilty of shooting Rashan Baul multiple times at Baul's auto-sales business in Wilmington. Prince did not dispute that he was the shooter but argued self-defense or extreme emotional distress based on prior conflicts with Baul, and he challenged the trial court's evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, and alleged prosecutorial misconduct on appeal. The Delaware Supreme Court reviewed the record and briefs, concluded that the evidence of prior incidents was properly admitted, the jury instructions were correct, no misconduct occurred, and any claimed errors were harmless or without merit. The court therefore affirmed the judgment of conviction and the forty-year sentence.

criminal lawprocedureguns

This case involved Brandon Carrigan's appeal from the Superior Court's denial of his second motion for postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's order, which had adopted a commissioner's report and summarily dismissed the motion while also denying Carrigan's request for appointed counsel. The court noted that Carrigan had not been convicted after a trial, failed to meet the specific pleading requirements of Rule 61(d)(2) for second or subsequent motions, and raised only meritless claims. As a result, the Superior Court properly dismissed the motion without further proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

In Weber v. State, the appellant Paul Weber sought to challenge his 2001 forgery conviction, for which he received a thirty-day sentence that carried no right of appeal under the Delaware Constitution, arguing that its later use as a predicate offense to sentence him as a habitual offender for a 2005 attempted robbery conviction violated due process. Weber had repeatedly litigated this issue through direct appeals and postconviction petitions under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61, with prior decisions rejecting his claims. The Superior Court denied his latest motion for relief from judgment, which attempted to reframe the argument as an attack solely on the forgery conviction. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the motion was procedurally barred under Rule 61 as successive and previously adjudicated, that the conviction itself was not independently unconstitutional, and that any remaining claims should be pursued in Weber's pending federal habeas proceeding.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a custody dispute between parents Jennifer Wilson Nash and Edison Wilson over their two teenage children, who had been living with Wilson in Delaware under a prior out-of-state order after Nash relocated to Florida. Nash petitioned the Delaware Family Court more than two years later to modify the arrangement for permanent placement with her in Florida and to appoint a guardian ad litem, citing concerns about the children's emotional well-being and the father's communication about their activities. After a hearing, interviewing the children, and applying the standards in 13 Del. C. § 729(c)(2) along with the best-interests factors in § 722, the Family Court denied the petition, finding insufficient grounds for modification and giving weight to the children's stated preference to stay. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Family Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the guardian appointment or the modification and that its factual findings and legal analysis were supported by the record.

family law

The case involved Marco Ortiz-Bedolla appealing the Superior Court's denial of his motion under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b) to modify his sentence after he pled guilty to two counts of second-degree burglary and one count of second-degree conspiracy in exchange for dismissal of 45 other charges. The Superior Court had sentenced him to terms including suspended Level V incarceration conditioned on completing the Key Program for substance abuse treatment, and it denied the motion as untimely with no extraordinary circumstances present. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the denial, holding that Ortiz-Bedolla's arguments—including that "extraordinary circumstances" was unconstitutionally vague, that the Key Program requirement improperly extended his incarceration, and that the court had assured him the motion would be granted—were either not preserved, without merit, or unsupported by the record, as Rule 35(b) provides an equitable mechanism for leniency but does not implicate vagueness doctrines applicable to criminal statutes.

criminal lawprocedure

Patrick Henry appealed the Superior Court's denial of his 2019 motion to amend his sentence under 11 Del. C. § 3901 for multiple 2007 drug-related convictions, including trafficking and possession with intent to deliver cocaine from two separate incidents. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the denial after construing the motion as one for correction of an illegal sentence under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a). The court held that the consecutive Level V sentences were required by the version of § 3901(d) in effect at the time of sentencing and did not exceed statutory limits or violate other rules for legality. It further noted that the sentences included the required period of lower-level supervision for reintegration and that ineffective assistance claims must be raised under Rule 61 rather than Rule 35.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves Quincy Walkin appealing a Family Court decision regarding protection from abuse orders against Katy Lamont. The Family Court had dismissed Walkin's petition for such an order and granted Lamont's petition. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Family Court's ruling, adopting the reasons provided in the lower court's September 21, 2018 order.

family law

Nathan McNeil appealed to the Delaware Supreme Court from a Superior Court order denying his motion for recusal of the judge in his criminal case, and he sought to consolidate the appeal with another matter. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that it could not review the order because it was interlocutory rather than final. Under Article IV, Section 11(1)(b) of the Delaware Constitution, the Supreme Court may only hear appeals from final judgments in criminal cases, and precedent establishes that denial of a recusal motion does not constitute a final order. The court further noted that the notice of appeal manifestly failed to invoke its jurisdiction, making further notice unnecessary.

criminal lawprocedure

In Kane v. State, Thomas Kane appealed from a Superior Court order denying his motion for recusal of the bench in a criminal proceeding and sought to consolidate the appeal with another case. The Delaware Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the order was interlocutory rather than final. Under Article IV, § 11(1)(b) of the Delaware Constitution, the Court may review only final judgments in criminal cases, and prior precedent establishes that denial of a recusal motion does not qualify as a final, appealable order. The notice of appeal therefore manifestly failed to invoke the Court's jurisdiction, leading to dismissal under Supreme Court Rule 29(c) without additional notice.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involves Anzara Brown appealing a Superior Court order denying his motion to recuse the judge in an ongoing criminal proceeding. The Delaware Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, as the Delaware Constitution permits review only of final judgments in criminal cases. An order denying recusal is interlocutory and not appealable as a final order. The Court applied Supreme Court Rule 29(c) to dismiss the appeal sua sponte without further notice, finding the notice of appeal manifestly failed to invoke jurisdiction.

criminal lawprocedure

William Burrows appealed the Superior Court’s denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence after he pled guilty in 2016 to one count of sexual solicitation of a child and one count of fourth-degree rape. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the denial, ruling that Burrows’ aggregate forty-year sentence, suspended after fifteen years, fell within statutory maximums and therefore was not illegal even though it exceeded SENTAC guidelines. The court further held that the two offenses were distinct crimes with different elements, so separate punishments for each did not violate double jeopardy.

criminal lawprocedure

In Bishop v. State, the defendant was charged with multiple crimes including Assault in the Second Degree, Strangulation, and Tampering with a Witness, then pleaded guilty to Strangulation, Tampering with a Witness, and Assault in the Third Degree, resulting in a sentence of several years of incarceration suspended after three years for probation. Bishop filed a direct appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court, but his counsel submitted a brief under Supreme Court Rule 26(c) asserting that a thorough review of the record revealed no arguably appealable issues, and Bishop offered no points for consideration. The court conducted its own examination of the record and law, determined that the appeal was wholly without merit and devoid of any arguable claims, and therefore affirmed the Superior Court's judgment while rendering the motion to withdraw moot.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Gilbert Renn's appeal from the Superior Court's denial of his sixth motion to modify his sentence for two counts of second-degree robbery, to which he had pleaded guilty in 2015. Renn sought an order requiring that the final six months of his Level V imprisonment be served at Level IV home confinement due to personal and family health issues. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial, holding that the motion was repetitive and filed well beyond the 90-day limit under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b) without a showing of extraordinary circumstances. The court also noted that the Superior Court's prior orders left any Level IV placement to the discretion of the Department of Correction rather than mandating it.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a stockholder derivative suit against Blue Bell Creameries executives and directors alleging breaches of fiduciary duties after a 2015 listeria outbreak that contaminated products, caused deaths, forced a recall and plant shutdowns, and led to a dilutive investment. The Court of Chancery dismissed the claims for failure to plead demand futility under Rule 23.1, finding insufficient facts to question board impartiality or to show the board utterly failed to implement any compliance monitoring system under Caremark. The Delaware Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the complaint alleged particularized facts creating reasonable doubt about one additional director's impartiality due to his long ties to the controlling family, and that the board made no good-faith effort to establish any reporting system for the company's central food-safety risks despite their mission-critical nature.

business & regulatoryprocedure