James T. Vaughn

The case involved a mother's appeal from a Family Court order terminating her parental rights over two young children who had been placed in state custody due to injuries sustained by one child and subsequent removal of the other. The mother argued that the court erred in finding statutory grounds for termination based on her failure to plan and that termination was not in the children's best interests, particularly regarding housing stability and bonds with family. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the termination, holding that clear and convincing evidence supported the failure to plan after the children had been in DSCYF custody for over a year and that the best interest factors under Delaware law weighed against the mother.

family law

The case involved Gary Jones appealing from rulings by the Superior Court of Delaware in two criminal matters under Cr. ID Nos. 1706012725 and 1708022021. The Delaware Supreme Court reviewed the appeal on the parties' briefs and affirmed the Superior Court's final judgment. The court's decision rested entirely on the reasons provided in the Superior Court's order dated July 20, 2022, without additional analysis. This affirmance upheld the lower court's outcome in the criminal proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute between Coronado Coal II, LLC and Blackhawk Land and Resources, LLC over a sub-sublease agreement for coal mining rights in the Powellton “A” seam in West Virginia. Coronado alleged that Blackhawk breached the agreement by rejecting its plans for retreat mining, which Coronado claimed violated its rights under the lease terms, including Article Six of the underlying 1937 Lease. The Superior Court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that an arbitration clause in the lease required the claims to be resolved through arbitration. On appeal, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, reasoning that the dispute directly concerned Coronado’s performance under Article Six—specifically, whether its proposed mining operations might injure other seams or violate mining standards—and thus fell within the scope of the arbitration provision. The court rejected arguments that the clause was ambiguous or applied only to completed actions rather than proposed performance.

business & regulatoryproperty

In Hopkins v. State, the defendant appealed his Superior Court convictions for drug dealing, disregarding a police signal, conspiracy, resisting arrest, and multiple traffic and drug possession offenses arising from a 2020 traffic stop and chase during which police found cocaine, marijuana, heroin, and cash in his possession. He argued that the trial court abused its discretion by rejecting a last-minute plea agreement, erred by denying his motion for judgment of acquittal on the drug-dealing charge, and that cumulative errors required reversal. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that the plea was untimely under the court's scheduling order and emergency procedures, that the evidence including an officer's expert testimony on drug quantity and packaging was sufficient to support the drug-dealing conviction under the deferential standard for acquittal motions, and that no cumulative error occurred. A concurring opinion expressed reservations about the strength of the intent evidence but agreed the convictions should stand given the lack of objection to the testimony.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Pierre Downs's appeal from a Superior Court sentence order declaring him an habitual criminal under 11 Del. C. § 4214(c) following his convictions for robbery in the first degree and related offenses. After prior proceedings vacated some convictions and remanded for resentencing, the Superior Court continued a scheduled hearing sua sponte to allow the State to file a revised habitual offender motion under subsection (c) rather than (d). The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the trial court acted within its discretion by exercising its inherent authority to manage proceedings and ensure a full record. The court noted that both parties had notice of the habitual offender issue, the defendant received an opportunity to contest the motion, and he qualified as an habitual offender under the applicable statute. The decision found no violation of procedural rules or unfair prejudice to the defendant.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned the liability of Joseph and Margaret Booth, owners of a Georgetown, Delaware property that had hosted a dry-cleaning business, for environmental contamination cleanup costs incurred by the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC). DNREC sued under the Hazardous Substance Cleanup Act (HSCA) to recover costs including those from a Brownfield Development Agreement, after the Booths withdrew an administrative appeal of a Secretary's order finding them in violation. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's grant of summary judgment on liability, holding the Booths strictly liable for $105,464.87 in remedial and administrative costs. The court reasoned that the Booths' failure to exhaust administrative remedies made the Secretary's findings binding via issue preclusion, that Brownfield grants qualified as recoverable public funding under the HSCA, and that causation need not be separately proven for cost recovery.

environmentproperty

In this case, Isaias R. Ortiz appealed the Superior Court's denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence following his 2003 convictions for multiple drug trafficking, possession with intent to deliver, and related offenses. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's ruling, holding that Ortiz's sentences—including 20 years for trafficking over 100 grams of cocaine, 15 years for trafficking 5-50 grams, and an enhanced 20 years for PWID based on a prior New York conviction—fell within applicable statutory limits and mandatory minimums. The court clarified that the sentences were not imposed solely as minimum-mandatory terms and that the prior conviction enhancement was properly supported. It also rejected claims that clarifying Ortiz's eligibility for good-time credits after serving minimum-mandatory portions required a hearing or violated other statutes.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involves Jonathan Wonnum's appeal from the Superior Court's denial of his third motion for postconviction relief following his 1993 guilty plea to first-degree murder. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the denial, holding that the motion was procedurally barred under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(d)(2) because Wonnum was not convicted after a trial but instead pleaded guilty, and a recent decision in Reed v. State did not provide him relief as it does not apply to guilty pleas. The court reasoned that successive postconviction motions require specific showings of actual innocence or a new retroactive constitutional rule only for those convicted at trial, which Wonnum could not meet.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Timothy McCrary's appeal from his Superior Court convictions on four counts of unlawful sexual contact in the first degree, arising from incidents while he worked as an aide at a preschool. McCrary challenged the admission of two out-of-court statements by one child victim under 13 Del. C. § 3513 as violating his Sixth Amendment confrontation rights, the admission of another victim's statement under 11 Del. C. § 3507 for lack of proper foundation, and the cumulative prejudicial effect. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that the statements were properly admitted under the statutes and did not violate constitutional protections or deprive McCrary of a fair trial.

criminal lawprocedure

Jerome Madison, the defendant in a criminal case, appealed from the Superior Court’s denial of his second motion for postconviction relief. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s ruling in full. The court held that the Superior Court’s refusal to expand the record by ordering additional DNA testing did not violate the appellant’s due process rights and that the denial of postconviction relief was correctly decided.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Dustin Ritchie's appeal from a Superior Court sentencing order after he was found in violation of probation on his 2019 guilty plea to third-degree conspiracy. The Superior Court had sentenced him to one year of incarceration, suspended after completion of a Level V substance-abuse treatment program, followed by Level III probation. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the sentence fell within statutory limits and that the trial court did not rely on impermissible factors or exhibit a closed mind, as probation revocation involves broad judicial discretion. However, the court remanded the matter for issuance of a modified sentencing order to properly credit Ritchie for time previously served at Level V incarceration and at a Level IV violation-of-probation center.

criminal lawprocedure

Edward W. Benson, III appealed the Superior Court's denial of his first motion for postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 after pleading guilty to possession of a firearm by a person prohibited and act of intimidation. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the denial, concluding that Benson's guilty plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, thereby waiving his claims that the Superior Court erred in denying his motion to suppress or failing to hold a Franks hearing. The court further held that Benson's ineffective assistance of counsel claims lacked merit because his attorneys made reasonable strategic decisions not to pursue certain suppression arguments and Benson failed to demonstrate prejudice.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved James Thompson's lawsuit against his former employer for alleged retaliation under Delaware's workers' compensation statute after he was terminated following a workplace injury claim. The Superior Court granted summary judgment to the employer, finding the claim barred by the two-year statute of limitations and no causal link to the workers' compensation filing, and later denied Thompson's untimely motion for reconsideration. On appeal, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that it lacked jurisdiction because Thompson failed to file a timely appeal from the summary judgment order, as his motion for reargument was filed well after the five-day deadline and did not toll the thirty-day appeal period.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved Daymere Wisher's appeal from a Superior Court order denying his motion for sentence review under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b) after he pleaded guilty to second-degree murder, manslaughter, attempted first-degree robbery, and conspiracy. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the denial, holding that Wisher's sentence included mandatory minimum terms that could not be reduced absent an application under 11 Del. C. § 4217, and that his claims of extraordinary circumstances based on emotional distress, juvenile brain development, and ineffective assistance of counsel did not warrant relief. The court reasoned that Rule 35(b) motions filed outside the 90-day window require extraordinary circumstances not present here, the motion was repetitive, and claims of ineffective assistance are properly raised under Rule 61 instead.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Edualdo Navarro suing his ex-wife Dayana Bedolla-Figueroa in Superior Court for fraud and reckless infliction of emotional distress, alleging she concealed her divorce petition and sold the marital home without sharing proceeds. The Superior Court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, determining that disputes over marital property distribution fall exclusively under the Family Court's jurisdiction. On appeal, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that even though the Family Court had not retained jurisdiction earlier, Navarro must seek relief in the Family Court rather than filing in Superior Court.

family lawprocedure

The case involves Carlos Ferrer-Vasquez's appeal from the Superior Court's denial of his first motion for postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 after he pleaded guilty to second-degree murder, possession of a deadly weapon during the commission of a felony, and criminal contempt of a protective order for stabbing his wife to death. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the denial sua sponte, holding that the motion was time-barred under Rule 61(i)(1) because it was filed more than one year after the conviction became final. The court further reasoned that Ferrer-Vasquez had been properly advised during the plea colloquy of the potential life sentence and his waiver of appeal rights, that the Truth-in-Sentencing form accurately reflected the sentence range, and that his counsel had presented mitigation evidence including a psychiatric evaluation at sentencing.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved an appeal by Yessica Morris from a Family Court order terminating her parental rights to her infant daughter. The child was removed from the mother's custody shortly after birth in 2021 due to the mother's psychiatric hospitalization, history of unstable mental health including schizophrenia, inconsistent medication adherence, lack of stable housing, and unsuitable caregiving arrangements with the maternal grandmother. The Family Court found the child dependent, approved a case plan that the mother did not consistently follow, and determined after hearings that termination was in the child's best interests based on factors such as the mother's limited interaction with the child and inability to provide stability. On appeal, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the termination, concluding there was ample evidence supporting failure to plan and the best-interests finding, with no legal error or abuse of discretion by the lower court.

family law

This case was an appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court from orders of the Family Court in a dispute between Samuel Painter and Louise Painter. The Supreme Court affirmed the Family Court’s July 19, 2021 and January 12, 2022 orders after reviewing the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal. The court also noted the parties’ acknowledgment of positive progress since the January 2022 order and encouraged them to continue that progress.

family law

Kenneth Deputy, facing criminal charges including first-degree kidnapping in Superior Court, petitioned the Delaware Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to compel the lower court to consider his pro se motion to dismiss appointed counsel from the Office of Defense Services and appoint new counsel. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition after reviewing the filings and applicable standards. It held that a writ of mandamus requires a clear right to the requested action, the absence of other adequate remedies, and an arbitrary refusal by the trial court to act, none of which Deputy demonstrated. The court noted that an indigent defendant has no right to counsel of his choice and that Deputy could raise his claims on direct appeal or in postconviction proceedings if convicted.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, Frederick W. Smith, Jr. appealed the Superior Court's denial of his motion under Superior Court Criminal Rule 36, which sought to correct an alleged clerical mistake in his criminal sentencing. Smith claimed he had not received proper credit for time served before his adjudications and that the court had not adequately considered a psychiatric evaluation ordered before his August 2021 sentencing. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the sentences were already made effective from the date of custody, thereby providing the appropriate credit. The court also noted that the psychiatric evaluation was likely reviewed during sentencing and that Smith's arguments did not establish grounds for relief under Rule 36. The appeal was resolved based on the record and the parties' filings without further argument.

criminal lawprocedure