 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Fatir v. State, No. 680, 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, September 5, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of appellant's second postconviction relief motion as procedurally barred was proper because there was no ex post facto constitutional impediment to the application of Del. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 61 to a defendant whose convictions became final before the adoption of the rule.
|
|||||
| Tilghman v. State, No. 566, 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, September 5, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As a transcript of defendant's guilty plea colloquy and his truth-in-sentencing guilty plea form refuted defendant's claim on appeal that his guilty plea was involuntarily entered and there were no other arguably appealable issues upon review by the court pursuant to Del. Sup. Ct. R. 26(c), defendant's conviction by the trial court was affirmed.
|
|||||
| Benson v. State, No. 652, 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, September 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea pursuant to Del. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 32(d) was properly denied because transcript of plea colloquy reflected defendant's understanding of potential sentence of crime he was pleading guilty to and defendant's acknowledgement that no one had promised what sentence he would receive.
|
|||||
| Kennard v. State, No. 74, 2007,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, September 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in denying defendant's request that State disclose confidential informant's identity or denying related request to produce confidential informant for an in camera Flowers hearing; defendant did not show pursuant to Del. R. Evid. 509 that the confidential informant would give testimony that would materially aid the defense.
|
|||||
| Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., No. 462, 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, September 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
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. |
