 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bagwell v. Carroll, C.A. No. 06C-01-014 THG,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, SUSSEX, April 4, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since plaintiff, a litigious prison inmate, had at least three actions dismissed for failure to state a claim for relief, under the "three strikes" provisions of 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915(g) and Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, § 8804(f), he could not proceed in forma pauperis; his motions to be a live organ donor and for appointment of counsel were also denied.
|
|||||
| Dorsey v. State, No. 406, 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, April 4, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Superior court did not err in denying defendant's motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Del. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 61. Although defendant claimed that his guilty plea was involuntary as a result of the ineffective assistance of his counsel, there was no evidence that any error on the part of counsel caused defendant to plead guilty.
|
|||||
| Driscoll v. State, No. 320, 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, April 4, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although the trial court did not modify the sentence that defendant requested, the modification complied with the court's overall "sentencing scheme"; since the modified sentence was within the permissible statutory limits, the trial court did not err in modifying the sentence as it did or in denying defendant's motion for reconsideration.
|
|||||
| Grzybowski v. State, No. 167, 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, April 4, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the issues that defendant raised in his briefs arose solely from a violation of probation proceeding and sentencing, they were not cognizable in an appeal that was limited to the trial court's denial of his motion for jail time credit; therefore, pursuant to Del. Sup. Ct. R. 25(a), defendant's appeal lacked merit.
|
|||||
| Proctor v. Taylor, No. 67, 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, April 4, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Winward v. Carroll, No. 322, 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, April 4, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because it was clear that an inmate was not challenging the jurisdiction of the trial court to sentence him, the trial court properly denied his Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, § 6902(1) petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Contact Us |
| Copyright® 2009 LexisNexis , a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
