Justia Delaware Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2001, Alonzo Cannon was convicted by jury on offenses related to possession of cocaine and marijuana. At trial, the State introduced evidence that after being read his Miranda rights, Cannon confessed to police that the drugs were his and also where he obtained them. The trial judge sentenced Cannon to eighteen years unsuspended jail time followed by decreasing levels of supervision. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed his convictions and sentence on direct appeal. The Superior Court denied Cannon’s first motion for postconviction relief, and the Supreme Court dismissed his appeal of the first motion as untimely filed. In 2015, with the assistance of counsel, Cannon filed a second motion for postconviction relief, claiming that the State’s failure to disclose misconduct in the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (“OCME”) violated the State’s obligation under "Brady v. Maryland," and that an evidentiary hearing was required to explore the Brady issue further. The motion was a lengthy form motion filed in a number of cases raising misconduct at the OCME. The Superior Court summarily dismissed the motion, and found there was no evidence to support Cannon’s contention that the misconduct at the OCME was ongoing during his trial in 2001, or that the misconduct involved false chemical analysis reporting as opposed to theft. Cannon appealed again. The State responded that Cannon’s motion was barred by amended Superior Court Criminal Rule 61, and in any event, Cannon admitted to the crimes, and the drugs field tested positive for illegal substances, so the motion should be denied. After careful review of the record, the Supreme Court found that the issues on appeal were not fairly raised before the Superior Court, and Rule 61 barred Cannon’s claims because he did not allege actual innocence. "Even if we reached the merits of his claims, they would be barred due to the overwhelming evidence of guilt presented at trial. Therefore we affirm the Superior Court’s judgment." View "Cannon v. Delaware" on Justia Law

Kenneth Davis was employed by Christiana Care Health Services as a dishwasher in its Nutrition Services department. In 2012, Davis was working when he slipped and fell backwards, landing on his back. A doctor saw Davis for a defense medical examination on in early 2013. The doctor wrote a report indicating “that any low back injury causally related to the work accident was “resolved” and any ongoing symptoms were non-work related.” Approximately one month later, Christiana Care’s counsel sent an “extremely modest” settlement offer to Davis’s attorney. Although it extended this settlement offer, Christiana Care’s position was that Davis’s back injury was due to a pre-existing gunshot injury that was unrelated to Davis’s employment. To the extent that any injury during his work contributed to Davis’s back troubles, Christiana Care maintained that this was resolved as of February 27, 2013 when Dr. Crain examined him. This appeal addressed the Superior Court’s decision to overrule a determination by the Industrial Accident Board (the “IAB”) that the parties had reached a settlement agreement, which barred a later claim for benefits due to permanent impairment. Because it lacked a complete release that would have avoided any question about its effect, the settlement agreement was “less than ideally clear.” But the IAB’s factual determination that the parties’ settlement, which involved an express agreement that the injury in question was resolved as an ongoing medical matter, precluded a future claim for permanent impairment based on the same “resolved” injury was supported by substantial evidence. The Superior Court was required to defer to the IAB’s factual determinations to the extent they were supported by substantial evidence, and in this case, the Superior Court erred by substituting its own factual findings for that of the IAB. Moreover, there was no question that the settlement agreement was, as a legal matter, a binding contract supported by adequate consideration. Therefore, the Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court’s decision and reinstated the IAB’s determination. View "Christiana Care Health Services v. Davis" on Justia Law

This appeal stems from an incident that took place in 2008 between defendant David Chianese and his then-girlfriend, Heather Barron. Barron alleged that Chianese dragged her out of his house, causing her to sustain injuries that required medical treatment and caused her to miss work. Chianese insisted that he never touched Barron and alleged that he asked her to leave his house, helped her carry her things to his truck, and drove her home. As a result of the incident, Chianese was arrested and later agreed to probation before judgment guilty plea to offensive touching (an offense that did not have as an element that Chianese caused Barron any injury). Barron submitted a Victim’s Loss Statement to the Court of Common Pleas Investigative Services Office (“ISO”). ISO referred Barron to the Victims’ Compensation Assistance Program (VCAP), and then ISO received a revised restitution request. Chianese violated the terms of his probation by testing positive on multiple occasions for illegal substances. Although the State had sought restitution as part of the original plea order, and the court staff was actively investigating restitution at the time of the violation of parole hearing, the State did not raise the issue of restitution, and the court discharged Chianese from probation as “unimproved” without addressing restitution. VCAP awarded Barron $12,107.35 to cover her out-of-pocket medical expenses and lost wages. The Court of Common Pleas investigator then sent Chianese a letter recommending that Chianese pay restitution to VCAP. Chianese refused to reimburse VCAP and demanded a hearing, denying causing any injury to Barron. The Court of Common Pleas denied the State’s request for restitution because it ruled that it could only award restitution to the victims of crimes, not third parties, and because it did not have custody or control over the defendant’s funds. The Superior Court affirmed. The Supreme Court agreed, and affirmed. View "Delaware v. Chianese" on Justia Law

Appellant Xavier Broomer appealed the Superior Court’s March 2015 bench ruling denying his post-verdict Motion for Judgment of Acquittal. Broomer raised one argument on appeal. The jury acquitted Broomer of Aggravated Possession and Drug Dealing. However, the jury convicted Broomer of Conspiracy in the Second Degree. Broomer argued that his acquittal on the underlying offense of Drug Dealing precludes his conviction on Conspiracy in the Second Degree. After review, the Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed. View "Broomer v. Delaware" on Justia Law

David Stoms was killed in an automobile accident by an uninsured driver. David was driving a car belonging to his employer, Diamond Motor Sports, Inc., which had purchased uninsured motorists coverage on its insurance policy only for a limited class of drivers. Under Diamond Motor's insurance policy, only directors, officers, partners, and owners of the corporation had uninsured motorists coverage. David Stoms was a finance manager at Price Toyota, one of Diamond Motor's dealerships. The insurance policy gave all drivers, including David, personal injury protection coverage up to $30,000 per accident. David had purchased no supplemental coverage of his own. Although Federated Insurance paid the entire $30,000 in personal injury protection on David's behalf, it denied Mrs. Stoms benefits for uninsured motorists coverage resulting from David's death. Mrs. Stoms sued Federated Insurance, demanding those benefits. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment and the Superior Court granted Federated Insurance's motion. Mrs. Stoms argued that the Superior Court erred in granting Federated Service Insurance Company's motion for summary judgment after concluding that the insurance policy it issued to Diamond Motor was neither contrary to public policy nor ambiguous. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Stoms v. Federated Service Insurance Company" on Justia Law

In 2013, the Delaware Supreme Court determined that Matthew Kelty was eligible for personal injury protection (PIP) benefits under an insurance policy between State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and John and Shirley Lovegrove after Kelty was injured in an accident involving the Lovegroves' vehicle. As a result, the Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court's earlier grant of summary judgment to State Farm and remanded the case for further proceedings. On remand, the parties argued about whether Kelty was entitled to receive only the statutory minimum of $15,000, or $100,000, including excess coverage the Lovegroves opted to pay for but which was expressly limited in the policy to the insureds and their relatives who lived with them. The Superior Court held that Kelty was entitled to receive the full $100,000 because the policy's limitation on who could benefit from the excess coverage was "void as against public policy." The Supreme Court reversed finding that the plain language of the statute, 21 Del. C. 2118, required PIP policies to provide only $15,000 of coverage. Imposing a higher minimum here simply because the Lovegroves chose to pay for additional coverage for themselves and their relatives "thwart[ed] Delaware's public policy to encourage drivers to purchase more than the statutorily-mandated minimum by increasing the cost of excess coverage.[. . .] It is not the role of the judiciary to alter that amount and thus disrupt the incentives that the General Assembly has itself set up for insurers and consumers. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Superior Court." View "State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Kelty" on Justia Law

The issue common for forty-five defendants (whose cases were consolidated for this opinion) was whether a defendant who pled guilty after a colloquy and admitted to crimes involving the possession of illegal narcotics should have her conviction vacated because she was unaware of serious problems at the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (the “OCME”) involving the handling of narcotics evidence. The Superior Court answered that question no, and held that the defendants were bound by their pleas. A 2014 investigation by the Delaware State Police and the Department of Justice revealed that some OCME employees had stolen drug evidence stored at the OCME due in large part to flawed oversight and security. To date, those problems, although including substantial evidence of sloppiness and allegations of “drylabbing,” did not involve evidence-planting. Much of the uncovered misconduct seemed to be inspired by the reality that the evidence seized from defendants in fact involved illegal narcotics, and the temptation this provided to certain employees to steal some of that evidence for their personal use and for resale. In prior decisions, the Delaware Supreme Court made clear that if a defendant knowingly pled guilty to a drug crime, he could not escape his plea by arguing that had he known that the OCME had problems, he would not have admitted to his criminal misconduct in possessing illegal narcotics. In those prior decisions, the Court found that defendants' please did not invalidate their freely-made pleas. The Court reached the same conclusion after review of this case, and affirmed the Superior Court. View "Aricidiacono,et al. v. Delaware" on Justia Law

This case involved an appeal from a complicated transaction between a private company whose equity was wholly owned by the family of A.R. Sanchez, Jr., Sanchez Resources, LLC (the “Private Sanchez Company”), and a public company in which the Sanchez family constituted the largest stockholder bloc with some 16% of the shares and that was dependent on the Private Sanchez Company for all of its management services, Sanchez Energy Corporation (the “Sanchez Public Company”). The transaction at issue required the Sanchez Public Company to pay $78 million to: (i) help the Private Sanchez Company buy out the interests of a private equity investor; (ii) acquire an interest in certain properties with energy-producing potential from the Private Sanchez Company; (iii) facilitate the joint production of 80,000 acres of property between the Sanchez Private and Public Companies; and (iv) fund a cash payment of $14.4 million to the Private Sanchez Company. In this derivative action, the plaintiffs alleged that this transaction involved a gross overpayment by the Sanchez Public Company, which unfairly benefited the Private Sanchez Company by allowing it to use the Sanchez Public Company‟s funds to buy out their private equity partner, obtain a large cash payment for itself, and obtain a contractual right to a lucrative royalty stream that was unduly favorable to the Private Sanchez Company and thus unfairly onerous to the Sanchez Public Company. As to the latter, the plaintiffs alleged that the royalty payment was not only unfair, but was undisclosed to the Sanchez Public Company stockholders, and that it was the Sanchez family's desire to conceal the royalty obligation that led to a convoluted transaction structure. The Court of Chancery dismissed the complaint, finding that the defendants were correct in their contention that plaintiffs had not pled demand excusal under "Aronson v. Lewis," (473 A.2d 805 (1984)). "Determining whether a plaintiff has pled facts supporting an inference that a director cannot act independently of an interested director for purposes of demand excusal under "Aronson" can be difficult. And this case illustrates that." Because of that, the Supreme Court found that plaintiffs pled facts supporting an inference that a majority of the board who approved the interested transaction they challenged could not consider a demand impartially. Therefore, the Court reversed and remanded so that plaintiffs could prosecute this derivative action. View "Delaware County Employees Retirement Fund, et al. v. Sanchez, et al." on Justia Law

The plaintiffs filed a challenge in the Court of Chancery to a stock-for-stock merger between KKR & Co. L.P. ("KKR") and KKR Financial Holdings LLC ("Financial Holdings") in which KKR acquired each share of Financial Holdings's stock for 0.51 of a share of KKR stock, a 35% premium to the unaffected market price. The plaintiffs' primary argument was that the transaction was presumptively subject to the entire fairness standard of review because Financial Holdings's primary business was financing KKR's leveraged buyout activities, and instead of having employees manage the company's day-to-day operations, Financial Holdings was managed by KKR Financial Advisors, an affiliate of KKR, under a contractual management agreement that could only be terminated by Financial Holdings if it paid a termination fee. As a result, the plaintiffs alleged that KKR was a controlling stockholder of Financial Holdings, which was an LLC, not a corporation. The Court of Chancery held that the business judgment rule was invoked as the appropriate standard of review for a post-closing damages action when a merger that is not subject to the entire fairness standard of review has been approved by a fully informed, uncoerced majority of the disinterested stockholders. For that and other reasons, the Court of Chancery dismissed plaintiffs' complaint. In this decision, the Delaware Supreme Court found that the Chancellor was correct in finding that the voluntary judgment of the disinterested stockholders to approve the merger invoked the business judgment rule standard of review and that the plaintiffs' complaint should have been dismissed. "Delaware corporate law has long been reluctant to second-guess the judgment of a disinterested stockholder majority that determines that a transaction with a party other than a controlling stockholder is in their best interests." View "Corwin, et al. v. KKR Financial Holdings LLC., et al." on Justia Law

This case centered on a question of priority between two lien creditors: who was entitled to be paid first from the proceeds of a mortgage foreclosure sale, the creditor who recorded its lien against the property first, or a second creditor who recorded later, but did so as part of a refinancing in which it discharged preexisting mortgages and judgment liens on the same property. Eastern Savings Bank, FSB, the second creditor to record its lien, argued that the doctrine of equitable subrogation protected its right to receive the proceeds of the foreclosure sale first, even though it recorded its mortgage after the first creditor, CACH, LLC recorded its judgment. The Court of Common Pleas and the Superior Court both disagreed, and held that CACH was entitled to be paid before Eastern Savings under Delaware's pure race recording statute. Eastern Savings appealed. Eastern Savings argued that the Superior Court erred by failing to apply the doctrine of equitable subrogation to place the priority of its mortgage above CACH's lien. After review, the Supreme Court disagreed and found that the doctrine of equitable subrogation as inapplicable to the facts of this case. Thus, the parties' priorities are governed by Delaware's race recording statute, and the judgment of the Superior Court was affirmed. View "Eastern Savings Bank, FSB v. Cach, LLC" on Justia Law