proof positive hearing in Delaware

2020C. § 1447A(Pf). 4 See id. 1S See In re Steigler, 250 A.2d 379, 382 (Del. 1969) (internal quotations omitted). '6 Td. at 383.

1995In its prior decision captioned In re Steigler, Del.Supr., 250 A.2d 379 (1969) the Supreme Court noted that at a proof positive hearing the Superior Court is to “avoid even the appearance of a determination of ultimate guilt or innocence” and that the applicable standard is whether the State has “a fair likelihood of convicting the accused.” When the Superior Court reconsidered the Marine case on remand it concluded that the term “prima facie case” as used in the context of a reverse amenability hearing meant something more than whether some credible evidence exists tending to prove each eleme

2016State v. Wright, 67 A.3d 319, 322 (Del. 2013).

2014(This Supreme Court opinion will be referred to as Wright-2013.) 7 The Supreme Court reinstated Wright’s conviction and remanded to me for resentencing. 5 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 6 373 U.S. 83 (1963). 7 State v. Wright, 67 A.3d 319, 319 (Del. 2013). 4 • Upon remand, I re-sentenced Wright to death, whereupon Wright appealed.

2020This provision entitles a juvenile defendant to an evidentiary hearing and allows the firearm charge to return to Family Court if the State cannot meet its burden.* The proof positive or presumption great standard is commonly understood as whether “after [a] full hearing ‘there is good ground to doubt the truth of the accusation.” If so, then “the Court in its discretion [may] conclude[] from the evidence that the State does not have a fair likelihood of convicting the accused of the . . . offense.” > Harper, 2014 WL 1303012 , at *5 (citing Marine v. State, 624 A.2d 1181, 1185 (Del. 1993)). 8

2020This provision entitles a juvenile defendant to an evidentiary hearing and allows the firearm charge to return to Family Court if the State cannot meet its burden.* The proof positive or presumption great standard is commonly understood as whether “after [a] full hearing ‘there is good ground to doubt the truth of the accusation.” If so, then “the Court in its discretion [may] conclude[] from the evidence that the State does not have a fair likelihood of convicting the accused of the . . . offense.” > Harper, 2014 WL 1303012 , at *5 (citing Marine v. State, 624 A.2d 1181, 1185 (Del. 1993)). 8

2019The WPD tossed the only evidence of a gun that may have been used in one robbery, albeit a toy gun. lt is true that a “firearm need not be recovered to support a jury finding that a defendant possessed 17 a firearm during the commission of a felony.”53 However, the State must establish through direct or circumstantial evidence that there was, in fact, a firearm.54 Under either a proof positive standard (that Defendant used, displayed or discharged) or beyond a reasonable doubt standard (that Defendant possessed), the State must establish evidence of a firearm.55 Since the State was unable to l

2019The WPD tossed the only evidence of a gun that may have been used in one robbery, albeit a toy gun. lt is true that a “firearm need not be recovered to support a jury finding that a defendant possessed 17 a firearm during the commission of a felony.”53 However, the State must establish through direct or circumstantial evidence that there was, in fact, a firearm.54 Under either a proof positive standard (that Defendant used, displayed or discharged) or beyond a reasonable doubt standard (that Defendant possessed), the State must establish evidence of a firearm.55 Since the State was unable to l

2019The witnesses in Desmond “viewed the weapon at close range and for extended periods of time.” Id.

2019C. § 2116(b), provides that the defendant “shall be brought before the Superior Court.” We review questions of statutory interpretation de novo.27 (22) The statute provides that “if after release [on the first offense] the defendant is charged by arrest . . . with the commission of a subsequent offense, that defendant shall be brought before the Superior Court.”28 It then provides, “If after a hearing, the Superior Court finds proof positive or presumption great that the defendant has committed [the] subsequent offense during such period of release . . . the Court shall revoke” the defendant’s

2018This unsupported allegation is insufficient to establish an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. 55 State v. Winn, 2004 WL 3030023 , *2 (Del.Super.), ajirmed, 2005 WL 3357513 (Del.); State v. Robinson, 2012 WL 1415645 , *3 (Del.Super.), affirmed, 2012 WL 4162948 (Del.). 54 State v. Exum, 2002 WL 100576 , *2 (Del.Super.), ajj‘l`rmed, 2002 WL 2017230 , *l (Del.); McAllister v. State, 2010 WL 3398949, *2 (Del.). 65 Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 556 (Del. 1990); State v. Brown, 2004 WL 74506 , *2 (Del.Super. 2004)(conclusory and unsubstantiated allegations of unprofessional conduct are insuf

2018This unsupported allegation is insufficient to establish an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. 55 State v. Winn, 2004 WL 3030023 , *2 (Del.Super.), ajirmed, 2005 WL 3357513 (Del.); State v. Robinson, 2012 WL 1415645 , *3 (Del.Super.), affirmed, 2012 WL 4162948 (Del.). 54 State v. Exum, 2002 WL 100576 , *2 (Del.Super.), ajj‘l`rmed, 2002 WL 2017230 , *l (Del.); McAllister v. State, 2010 WL 3398949, *2 (Del.). 65 Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 556 (Del. 1990); State v. Brown, 2004 WL 74506 , *2 (Del.Super. 2004)(conclusory and unsubstantiated allegations of unprofessional conduct are insuf