Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Delaware opinions name it 2 courts 2015–2023 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Delaware courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Brittingham v. Stategreen2 sentences2022Aug. 19, 2014). 5 Id. 6 Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998). 3 (6) As a preliminary matter, although it appears that the Superior Court mistakenly treated Thomas’s motion as a motion for modification of sentence under Rule 35(b), rather than a motion for correction of sentence under Rule 35(a), we nonetheless affirm the Superior Court’s denial of Thomas’s motion on the independent and alternative ground that it lacked merit under Rule 35(a).7 (7) Turning to the merits of Thomas’s appeal, we reject Thomas’s argument that our holding in Parker applies to his case. 2021Apr. 3, 2019) (citing Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998)). 6 Id. 7 See Thomas, 2015 WL 9265084, at *3 (“Thomas’s claim that his New Jersey convictions for third degree burglary were not qualifying predicate offenses for habitual offender sentencing is simply incorrect. . . . | 2 | 2 |
Hunt v. Stategreen1 sentence2021He thus did not qualify for sentence modification under Section 4204A and Rule 35A. (7) As to Thomas’s allegations concerning the risks of COVID-19 to inmates, the Superior Court correctly recognized that it could not reduce Thomas’s fifteen-year minimum mandatory sentence.5 The Superior Court did not err therefore in denying Thomas’s motion for sentence modification. 4 Hunt v. State, 2017 WL 2806903, at *1 (Del. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Sturgisgreen1 sentence2021June 28, 2017). 5 See, e.g., State v. Sturgis, 947 A.2d 1087, 1092 (Del. | 1 | 1 |
Thomas v. Stategreen1 sentence2021Apr. 3, 2019) (citing Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998)). 6 Id. 7 See Thomas, 2015 WL 9265084, at *3 (“Thomas’s claim that his New Jersey convictions for third degree burglary were not qualifying predicate offenses for habitual offender sentencing is simply incorrect. . . . | 1 | 1 |
Penson v. Ohiogreen1 sentence2015Thomas’s 1 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 U.S. 429, 442 (1988); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). 2 Del. | 1 | 1 |
Anders v. Californiagreen1 sentence2015Thomas’s 1 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 U.S. 429, 442 (1988); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). 2 Del. | 1 | 1 |
McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District 1green1 sentence2015Thomas’s 1 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 U.S. 429, 442 (1988); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). 2 Del. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Delaware. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bultron v. State
green
1 sentence2023This indicates that trial counsel was actively engaged in Thomas’s defense, even when trial was more than a year away.112 Accordingly, any error committed by the prothonotary’s office with respect to 108 Id. at 763. 109 Id. 110 App. to Answering Br. at B48 (First Motion to Dismiss Current Counsel). 111 See Bultron, 897 A.2d at 763 . 112 Joyner, 2017 WL 444942 , at *3. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Faretta v. California
green
1 sentence2023Finally, with respect to the Second Motion to Dismiss Current Counsel, even taking into account the prothonotary’s procedural error, the trial court acted within its discretion in addressing Thomas’s motion prior to sentencing. 45 Answering Br. at 22–23 (citing 422 U.S. 806 (1975)). 18 II. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Parker v. State
green
1 sentence2022Dec. 7, 2021) (affirming the denial of Thomas’s motion for correction of illegal sentence). 3 Parker v. State, 201 A.3d 1181 (Del. 2019). 2 misdemeanor theft should merge for sentencing. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Somerville v. State
green
1 sentence2018Super., ID No. 1009005841 (Jan. 26, 2012) Tr. at 6-13. 18 Sommerville, 703 A.2d at 632 . 11 State v. Thomas ID No. 1009005841 March 28, 2018 CONCLUSION I find that Thomas’ counsel represented him in a competent and effective manner and that Thomas has failed to demonstrate any prejudice stemming from the representation I also find that Thomas’ guilty plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily. l recommend that the Court deny Thomas’ motion for postconviction relief as procedurally barred and completely meritless. /s/ An_dren M Freml Commissioner AMF/dsc oc: Prothonotary 12 | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.