 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Douglas v. State, Nos. 316/333, 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, March 28, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Del. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 61 motion for postconviction relief was properly denied because appellant failed to demonstrate how any alleged error on his counsel's part resulted in prejudice to him. Because appellant did not request to represent himself, dismissal of claim based on an alleged denial of his right to proceed pro se was proper.
|
|||||
| Downing v. State, No. 359, 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, March 28, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of Del. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 61 motion for post conviction relief was proper because appellant failed to raise claims in direct appeal, and failed show cause for the failure and prejudice, so those claims were procedurally barred. Appellant also failed to show that alleged error on part of his counsel affected outcome of his case.
|
|||||
| In re Brown, No. 70, 2007,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, March 28, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Johnson v. State, No. 426, 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, March 28, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of motion for sentence modification was proper because appellant was not entitled under Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 6712(h) to credit for time spent in boot camp program as he served no portion of deferred, related level V sentence before entering it. It was immaterial that he was serving unrelated level V sentence before entering program.
|
|||||
| Kelly v. State, No. 53, 2007,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, March 28, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant's response to an order to show cause raised issues regarding the substantive merit of his appeal, and because nothing in the record reflected that his failure to file a timely notice of appeal was attributable to court-related personnel, pursuant to Del. Sup. Ct. R. 6, 29(b), the appeal was dismissed.
|
|||||
| Monnat v. Sparks, No. 532, 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, March 28, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Husband failed to demonstrate any error on the part of the trial court in entering a wife's proposed alimony order and denying his motion for clarification because he conceded that he received, but failed to fill out, the Del. Fam. Ct. R. Civ. P. 16(c) financial report and return it to the trial court within the required deadline.
|
|||||
| Sheridan v. Bd. of Adjustment, No. 526, 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, March 28, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| State v. Dawkins, ID #: 0210013335A,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, March 28, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's motion for postconviction relief was denied as (1) but for claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, defendant's claims were barred by Del. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 61(i)(3) and (4), and (2) as to ineffective assistance of counsel claim, evidence proving defendant guilty of murder in first degree and possession of weapon was not close.
|
|||||
| Talley v. State, No. 497, 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, March 28, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant's robbery and receiving stolen property convictions were affirmed where the trial court had properly limited an officer's testimony about his conversation with the owner of the vehicle used in the crime and properly admitted the victim's clearly voluntary out-of-court statement. Appellant had also waived his right to self-representation.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
