Justia Delaware Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant Heather Rybicki was convicted by a jury of driving under the influence of alcohol (“DUI”). She was sentenced to two years of Level V incarceration, suspended after three months for one year and six months of Level IV home confinement, suspended after six months for one year of Level III probation. On appeal, Rybicki argued: (1) there was no probable cause to issue the search warrant to obtain a blood sample used to determine her BAC; (2) there was no probable cause for her warrantless arrest; (3) absent the BAC evidence, there was insufficient evidence for conviction; (4) the State did not lay a sufficient foundation for the BAC evidence; and (5) two jury instructions given by the trial court were improper comments on the evidence. Rejecting all of appellant's contentions on appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Rybicki v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Mark Zambrana was convicted by the Superior Court following a bench trial on two counts of Sexual Solicitation of a Child. On appeal, he argued that his admitted misconduct of soliciting his 15 year old neighbor, S.Z., to remove her shirt and bra while he surreptitiously watched her did not qualify as sexual solicitation. He argues that 11 Del. C. 1112A required a defendant to create a physical “depiction” of the victim’s nudity in order to be convicted, and that he created no such “depiction” here. The Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed the conviction: "[a]lthough the term 'depiction' has multiple definitions, we find that for the purposes of section 1112A, 'depiction' encompasses not only tangible manifestations such as photographs and videos, but also includes live conduct. This definition best accords with the statute as a whole and the legislative purpose in enacting it. Applying this definition to the facts before us, we conclude that Zambrana’s actions constituted Sexual Solicitation of a Child." View "Zambrana v. Delaware" on Justia Law

In August 2013, officers from New Castle County Police Operation Safe Streets searched a home in Bear. During the search, the officers found Mark Smolka inside the house and a Taurus .38 special revolver in a closet. Smolka, who was a person prohibited from possessing a firearm, admitted at the scene that he had moved the gun to a closet and placed a lock on it. Smolka was arrested and charged with, among other offenses, possession of a firearm by a person prohibited. Before trial, Smolka moved to suppress evidence he claimed was illegally obtained during the search as well as his statements to the officers. The Superior Court denied Smolka's motion because Smolka failed to appear at the suppression hearing. The State then introduced at trial the evidence subject to the suppression motion. The jury found Smolka guilty of the firearm possession offense, and the trial judge sentenced him to three years imprisonment at Level 5 suspended for six months at Level 4 home confinement and one year at Level 3 probation supervision. Smolka claimed on appeal that the trial court erred when it found that he waived his right to suppress the evidence in question because he failed to appear at the suppression hearing. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that a defendant's voluntary failure to appear at a suppression hearing waived his right to be present at the hearing, but did not waive the defendant's constitutional right to challenge evidence as unlawfully obtained. The Court therefore remanded the case to Superior Court to conduct a suppression hearing. View "Smolka v. Delaware" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Anzara Brown on various drug dealing and drug possession charges. In his direct appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court, Brown challenged three decisions of the Superior Court regarding the admissibility of certain evidence used against him at trial. Because the Supreme Court found that the Superior Court acted within its discretion to deny Brown's suppression motions and admit the evidence, the Supreme Court affirmed his judgment of convictions. View "Brown v. Delaware" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellee Andy Laboy was arrested and indicted on charges of driving under the influence. He pled guilty, admitting in his plea colloquy with the Superior Court and his plea agreement that he was eligible to be sentenced as a third-time offender because he had been convicted of two previous DUIs. The Superior Court sentenced Laboy as a first-time offender. The State appealed, arguing that the Superior Court erred in disregarding his first two DUI offenses. Upon further review, the Supreme Court agreed: the Superior Court did not have discretion to ignore Laboy's previous DUI convictions under the DUI statute. The Court therefore reversed and remanded so that Laboy could be sentenced in accordance with the DUI statute as a third-time offender. View "Delaware v. Laboy" on Justia Law

Appellant Donta Vickers appealed his sentence stemming from his conviction as a habitual offender. A jury found Vickers guilty of assault second degree as a lesser-included offense of assault first degree; attempted robbery first degree; home invasion; conspiracy second degree; and three counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Vickers did not dispute that he has been convicted of three violent felonies on three separate occasions, nor did he dispute that, at least as to all of the convictions, the requirements of the habitual offender statute, 11 Del. C. 4214(b), have been met by these offenses. Instead, Vickers argued on appeal that his conviction for the first of the three violent felony offenses, arson first degree, should not have been counted under the habitual offender statute because he was a juvenile at the time of the offense and conviction. The Supreme Court found no merit in the appeal and therefore affirmed. View "Vickers v. Delaware" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant April Milligan appealed her convictions of Driving Under the Influence and Improper Lane Change. Milligan argued on appeal: (1) the Superior Court erred by admitting documentation relating to the chain of custody in the absence of live testimony, which she contended violated her right to confront her accusers as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to United States Constitution and Section 7 of the Delaware Constitution; and (2) the Superior Court abused its discretion by allowing the State to introduce the results of her blood draw without first establishing a proper foundation. Finding no merit to either contention, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Milligan v. Delaware" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Supreme Court's review centered on whether the provisions of the Truth In Sentencing Act of 1989 (the “TIS Act”) that indisputably abolished parole as to Title 11 and Title 16 of the Delaware Code also applied to felony DUI offenses imposed under section 4177 of Title 21. If the answer was yes (as the State argued), felony DUI offenders were ineligible for parole. The judicial and administrative answer to the question has consistently been no: the Superior Court and the Board of Parole have operated with the understanding that the provisions of the TIS Act that eliminated parole did not apply to felony DUI offenses. In addition, the Delaware Sentencing Accountability Commission (“SENTAC”) adhered to this position in its 2014 Benchbook. The Supreme Court, in its decision in this case, adhered to the principle of stare decisis and held that the TIS did not apply to felony DUI offenses under section 4177. "If the General Assembly wishes to amend the Code to alter this long-standing interpretation, it is free to do so." View "Delaware v. Barnes" on Justia Law

This case stemmed from crimes committed by defendant-appellant Rashie Harris at two barbershops on different dates. After a jury trial, Harris was found guilty of the following offenses: Attempted Murder First Degree, eight counts of Robbery First Degree, two counts of Burglary Second Degree, Unlawful Sexual Contact First Degree, Kidnapping Second Degree, eleven counts of Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony, Carrying a Concealed Deadly Weapon, Endangering the Welfare of a Child, Possession of a Non-Narcotic Schedule I Controlled Substance, and Resisting Arrest. The Superior Court also found Harris guilty of two counts of Possession of a Deadly Weapon by a Person Prohibited. Harris was sentenced as a habitual offender and sentenced to Level V incarceration for the balance of his natural life plus 524 years for his felony charges, and three years and five days for his misdemeanor charges. Prior to trial, the defense filed a Motion to Sever Charges, a Motion to Suppress the Photo Lineup Identification, and a Motion to Suppress the Show-up Identification. After conducting a hearing and receiving post-hearing submissions, the trial court denied all three motions. After trial but before the verdict, the defense moved for reconsideration of and reargument on the denial of the Motion to Suppress the Show-up Identification. The Superior Court reserved judgment until after the verdict. Following a jury verdict of guilty on all counts, the pending Motion for Reargument was converted into a Motion for a New Trial. After hearing oral arguments, the Superior Court denied the motion. On appeal, Harris argued that the Superior Court erred in denying his Motion for a New Trial. He contended that the admission into evidence of his show-up identification by witnesses to the incident in question violated his Due Process rights. The Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed the trial court's judgment. View "Harris v. Delaware" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was whether the Superior Court abused its discretion by declining to exercise its mandamus jurisdiction to remedy various alleged violations of the Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights (LEOBOR). Petitioners-appellants Shawn Brittingham and Christopher Story sought mandamus relief for several alleged violations of LEOBOR while they were police officers with the Georgetown Police Department (GPD). Respondents-appellees Town of Georgetown, Georgetown Chief of Police William Topping, and Captain Ralph Holm moved for summary judgment. The Superior Court granted the motion, thereby denying Brittingham and Story’s petition. In 2007, Chief Topping issued an oral order prohibiting GPD officers from meeting or speaking with the mayor or members of the Town Council to discuss internal police business without first obtaining his permission and going through the chain of command. In spite of this order, seven off-duty officers met with a Town Council member at her home to discuss police department issues. Captain Holm learned of the meeting, and informed appellants and the other officers involved that they were being investigated for violating GPD Rules and Regulations. A written reprimand was offered to each officer. Rather than accept the reprimand, appellants elected to request a hearing as to the allegations made against them (namely, for insubordination) with the Criminal Justice Council (CJC). The panel found substantial evidence to support the insubordination charge. Chief Topping imposed discipline against appellants: Brittingham received a four-week suspension without pay and a fourteen-day reduction in rank, and placed on disciplinary probation for a year; Story received a two-week suspension without pay, a seven-day reduction in rank, and disciplinary probation of a year. The officers appealed to the Town's Disciplinary Action Appeals Board, which upheld the CJC panel. Appellants filed a civil complaint against appellees, claiming (amongst other things) a violation of their First Amendment rights. On appeal, appellants argued that the process afforded them did not comply with LEOBOR, and that their only remedy was a mandamus writ ordering vacatur of the resulting disciplinary decisions. Appellees responded that they did not violate LEOBOR, that Appellants’ claims are now moot, and that the Superior Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the requested relief. After review, the Supreme Court found that Brittingham and Story were correct that a technical violation of LEOBOR occurred, but the Court rejected their claims as to all other alleged violations. However, as to the one meritorious claim, the matter was moot because neither Brittingham nor Story were then-employed by the GPD, and because the relief they sought was not relief that was available to them in a mandamus proceeding. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the Superior Court’s decision as to all claims but one, and as to that claim, the Court held that the claim was moot. View "Brittingham v. Town of Georgetown" on Justia Law