Karen Valihura

In Johns v. State, the defendant appealed his Superior Court convictions for drug dealing, possession of a firearm and ammunition by a person prohibited, receiving a stolen firearm, and related charges after police found drugs and a gun during a search of his home. Johns challenged the denial of his motion to suppress the evidence obtained via warrant, the admission of certain NCIC records at trial on hearsay and confrontation grounds, and the constitutionality of the felon-in-possession statute both facially and as applied. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that the July 2022 anonymous tip, when corroborated by independent police surveillance, supplied probable cause for the warrant. On the evidentiary and constitutional claims raised for the first time on appeal, the court found no plain error because no controlling precedent established that the trial court had erred and the record was insufficient to evaluate the as-applied challenge.

criminal lawguns

In Swanson v. State, Marvin Swanson appealed his Superior Court convictions for possession of a firearm and ammunition by a person prohibited, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained after police detained him and the adequacy of voir dire on potential juror bias. The Delaware Supreme Court reversed the convictions, concluding that Swanson's transport to the police station amounted to a de facto arrest unsupported by probable cause. The court determined that the confidential informant's tip about Swanson possessing a firearm, combined with the discovery of a handgun in a nearby recycling bin after a pat-down yielded no weapon, failed to establish a sufficient connection between Swanson and the firearm to support probable cause for arrest.

criminal lawguns

Phillip Brewer filed this appeal from the Superior Court’s denial of his motion for default judgment in an action under the Wrongful Conviction Compensation and Services Act. The Supreme Court of Delaware issued a notice to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for failure to comply with Supreme Court Rule 42, which governs appeals from interlocutory orders. In response, Brewer argued against the denial of his motion but did not address his noncompliance with Rule 42. The Court dismissed the appeal because the denial of the motion for default judgment was not a final order, and absent compliance with Rule 42, the Court may only review final judgments.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved Shaquan Guilford's attempt to appeal a Superior Court order denying his motions for postconviction relief and correction of an illegal sentence. Guilford received multiple directives from court clerks to file an official Form A notice of appeal and either pay the filing fee or submit a proper motion to proceed in forma pauperis, but he did not comply despite several opportunities and notices to show cause. He also failed to respond to the final show cause notice or complete the required filings. The Delaware Supreme Court dismissed the appeal under its rules for failure to pursue the appeal and unopposed dismissal.

criminal lawprocedure

In Johnson 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. Johnson had pleaded guilty to drug dealing heroin and second-degree conspiracy, agreeing to habitual-offender sentencing under 11 Del. C. § 4214(a) based on multiple prior felony convictions listed in the plea agreement, and the court imposed the recommended sentence of imprisonment with probation. On appeal, he contended that his sentence was illegal under Erlinger v. United States because two predicates were juvenile adjudications, the State had not proven the priors occurred on separate occasions, and the indictment did not allege the habitual-offender enhancement. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Johnson's guilty plea and admissions in the plea agreement and truth-in-sentencing form established his eligibility for enhanced sentencing, that he had not shown any factual basis to contest the number or timing of his prior convictions, and that he had forfeited any challenge to the indictment by pleading guilty.

criminal lawprocedure

Michael Collick appealed from a Superior Court criminal proceeding in Delaware. The Supreme Court received a motion to proceed in forma pauperis but repeatedly directed Collick to file a notice of appeal, which he did not do. After he received a certified notice to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed and failed to respond within the required period, the court dismissed the appeal as unopposed under Supreme Court Rules 3(b)(2) and 29(b).

criminal lawprocedure

The case was an appeal by Dixie Wilson from a Family Court of Delaware decision in a matter against David Truitt. The Delaware Supreme Court dismissed the appeal because Wilson failed to file an opening brief after two deadline extensions, did not respond to a delinquency letter or multiple notices to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed, and provided no updated address despite certified mail attempts that went undelivered. The court treated the dismissal as unopposed after the final notice period expired. Dismissal was entered under Supreme Court Rules 3(b) and 29(b).

family lawprocedure

This case concerns Jarreau Ayers's appeal from the Superior Court's denial of his motion for post-conviction relief in a criminal matter. The Delaware Supreme Court reviewed the appeal on the briefs and the record below. It affirmed the Superior Court's April 3, 2025 opinion, adopting its reasoning without additional analysis. The order upholds the denial of post-conviction relief.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Jarreau Ayers appealing the Superior Court's denial of his motion for post-conviction relief in a criminal matter. The Delaware Supreme Court reviewed the appeal on the briefs and record and affirmed the lower court's April 3, 2025 opinion. The court adopted the Superior Court's reasoning without providing additional analysis. This resulted in upholding the denial of the defendant's post-conviction motion.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved Wilson Velez appealing from a Delaware Superior Court order that adopted a commissioner's recommendation denying his motion for postconviction relief in a criminal proceeding. The Superior Court subsequently withdrew that order and directed further briefing on Velez's objections. The Delaware Supreme Court issued a notice directing Velez to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction over criminal interlocutory appeals. Velez failed to respond within the required period, and the Supreme Court therefore dismissed the appeal under its rules governing unopposed dismissals and jurisdiction.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved former spouses Daniel Goode and Sarina Goode, who had an unsigned separation agreement outlining property division, alimony, and child support payments that they followed for two years after their divorce decree was entered without addressing ancillary matters. After the ex-husband stopped making payments, the ex-wife petitioned the Family Court for specific performance of the agreement, which the court granted, also awarding attorneys' fees. On appeal, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the agreement was enforceable based on the parties' performance and conduct, that res judicata did not bar the petition since ancillary issues were not litigated in the divorce, and that the fee award was authorized under 13 Del. C. § 1515.

family law

In 2001, Detlef Hartmann pleaded guilty in Superior Court to one count of second-degree unlawful sexual intercourse and two counts of unlawful sexual contact, resulting in a sentence of incarceration and probation that was later modified after probation violations. In June 2025, Hartmann filed a petition for a writ of prohibition in the Delaware Supreme Court, arguing that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction over his criminal case because the Family Court has exclusive jurisdiction over matters involving child abuse, and seeking to void the proceedings. The court described the writ of prohibition as a remedy available only when a lower court clearly lacks or exceeds its jurisdiction, observed that it had already rejected Hartmann's identical jurisdictional claim on direct appeal in 2003, and therefore granted the State's motion to dismiss the petition.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved an appeal by Dean Sutton Jr. from a Superior Court decision, with Brian Emig, the warden of J.T.V.C.C., as the respondent. The Delaware Supreme Court dismissed the appeal after the appellant failed to file an opening brief by the October 2, 2025 deadline. Notices of delinquency and to show cause were sent, with the latter received by Sutton on October 27, 2025, and a response due by November 6, 2025. Sutton neither responded to the notice nor filed a brief, rendering the dismissal unopposed. The court therefore dismissed the appeal pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 3(b)(2) and 29(b).

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. and The Hertz Corporation appealing a Superior Court ruling against them in a dispute with several insurance companies regarding coverage obligations. The Delaware Supreme Court considered the appeal on the parties' briefs, oral arguments, and the record below. The Court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court in full, adopting the reasoning provided in that court's Memorandum Opinion dated October 9, 2024, and its Final Order and Judgment dated February 10, 2025.

business & regulatory

This case was an appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court by Manti Holdings, LLC and other plaintiffs against The Carlyle Group Inc. and affiliated defendants, arising from proceedings in the Court of Chancery under C.A. No. 2020-0657. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Chancery's judgment in full. The court reached this outcome after reviewing the parties' briefs, oral arguments, and the record below, concluding that affirmance was warranted on the basis of the reasons set forth in the Chancery Court's Memorandum Opinion of January 7, 2025, and its Final Order and Judgment of February 13, 2025.

business & regulatory

The case involved Enrique Garcia-Vincente's direct appeal from Superior Court convictions for second-degree rape, stalking, third-degree assault, and multiple counts of non-compliance with bond, for which he received an eleven-year unsuspended prison sentence. The Supreme Court of Delaware reviewed the trial evidence, including victim testimony about physical abuse and non-consensual sex, medical examinations confirming injuries, and records showing repeated contacts with the victim after a no-contact bond order. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find guilt on all counts and that the appellant's arguments, including claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, were without merit, resulting in affirmance of the judgment.

criminal law

The case involved Anthony Miller appealing his guilty plea conviction after a reindictment changed the drug dealing charge from MDMA (Class B felony) to methamphetamine (Class C felony), claiming a violation of his right to grand jury indictment because the plea colloquy misstated the felony class and sentence range. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction, finding no plain error in the plea process. The court reasoned that Miller did not assert he would not have pled guilty but for the error, had unequivocally admitted the facts supporting the methamphetamine charge, and thus the mistake did not affect his substantial rights, while remanding for resolution of a pending sentencing motion.

criminal lawprocedure

Calvin Ushery was convicted after a jury trial of Robbery First Degree, Assault First Degree (Over 62 Years), and Possession of a Deadly Weapon During the Commission of a Felony arising from an armed robbery and assault at a jewelry store. On appeal, he argued that the trial court failed to adequately admonish the jury against pre-deliberation discussions or extrajudicial research and that it erred by not further inquiring into an alternate juror's note raising hearing concerns and potential outside research, violating his right to a fair trial by an impartial jury. The Delaware Supreme Court reviewed the unpreserved claims for plain error and held that the trial court had provided sufficient admonishments, even if not repeated daily, and that the record showed the juror's hearing issues had been resolved without evidence of misconduct. The court declined to adopt a presumption of juror misconduct from inadequate admonishments and affirmed the convictions and habitual offender sentencing.

criminal law

In 1987, Benjamin Whiteman pleaded guilty to second-degree burglary in Delaware and later challenged that conviction in 2024 through a motion asserting that his counsel and plea form misled him about his appeal rights. He claimed the conviction was invalid and had been improperly used as a predicate for a habitual-offender life sentence imposed in a separate 1989 case. The Superior Court denied the motion, finding Whiteman lacked standing because he had completed his sentence for the burglary conviction and that the motion was barred under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. On appeal, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Rule 61 requires the defendant to be in custody and that the later use of a conviction for habitual-offender sentencing does not qualify as a collateral legal burden creating an exception. The court also enjoined Whiteman from future filings related to his 1987 or 1989 convictions or sentences due to repeated abuse of the judicial process.

criminal lawprocedure

In Watson v. State, Asha Watson was convicted by a Superior Court jury of misdemeanor shoplifting as a lesser-included offense of felony shoplifting and acquitted of second-degree conspiracy, resulting in a sentence of one year of imprisonment suspended for one year of Level I probation. Watson's counsel filed a brief and motion to withdraw under Supreme Court Rule 26(c), asserting that the direct appeal was without merit following a review of the record and law, and Watson submitted no additional points for consideration. The Delaware Supreme Court reviewed the record, determined that the appeal was wholly without merit and contained no arguably appealable issues, and therefore affirmed the Superior Court's judgment while deeming the motion to withdraw moot.

criminal law