Jack B. Jacobs

This case involved an appeal by Bruce Porter from a December 13, 2021 Family Court order that resolved several issues related to the parties' divorce. Porter filed his notice of appeal on February 25, 2022, after the January 12, 2022 deadline, citing his contraction of COVID-19 and poor health as the reason for the delay. The Delaware Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the timely filing of a notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement that must be strictly followed. The court reasoned that an appellant's pro se status and personal health issues do not excuse noncompliance unless the delay is attributable to court-related personnel, which was not shown here.

family lawprocedure

Millard Price appealed the Superior Court's denial of his motion under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a) to vacate or modify his sentence for second-degree murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Price claimed the sentence was illegal because the required Greentree Program no longer exists, and that assaults by correctional officers and inadequate medical care violated his Eighth Amendment rights. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the denial, reasoning that prison conditions do not support relief under Rule 35(a), Eighth Amendment challenges to post-sentencing events do not permit collateral attack on the sentence in this context, and any medical-based modification requires a Department of Correction application under 11 Del. C. § 4217. However, the court remanded for the limited purpose of modifying the sentence order to reflect the DOC's discretion to assign an alternative drug treatment program. The court reviewed the denial for abuse of discretion and found no merit in the appeal except for the program substitution issue.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case involves stockholders of AmerisourceBergen Corporation seeking to inspect the company's books and records under Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law to investigate potential breaches of fiduciary duty and mismanagement related to opioid distribution practices. The Court of Chancery ordered the production of certain documents and allowed a deposition to identify relevant records. On appeal, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a Section 220 demand stating a proper investigatory purpose need not specify the stockholders' ultimate objective if wrongdoing is confirmed, that establishing actionable wrongdoing is not always required, and that the post-trial deposition was within the court's discretion.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved Jeffrey D. Scott's appeal from a Superior Court order denying his motion for post-conviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. Scott had been convicted of second-degree murder as a lesser-included offense, one count of possession of a deadly weapon during the commission of a felony, and one count of endangering the welfare of a child, following an incident in which he stabbed his girlfriend to death. He claimed that both his trial and appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance in multiple respects, including failing to object to certain evidence and arguments. The court affirmed the denial of relief, holding that Scott's claims failed to satisfy either prong of the Strickland test because they were conclusory and did not demonstrate deficient performance or resulting prejudice. The court also rejected a related claim under Cooke v. State after remand.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves an appeal by Lauren A. Layton from a Family Court decision against Vernon J. Layton, Jr. The Delaware Supreme Court issued a notice to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed because the appellant failed to pay the Family Court filing fee and transcript costs. The appellant did not respond to the notice within the required ten-day period. As a result, the court dismissed the appeal as unopposed under Supreme Court Rules 3(b)(2) and 29(b).

family lawprocedure

This case involved an appeal by Ivize of Milwaukee, LLC and Ivize of Kansas City, LLC from a Court of Chancery ruling in breach of contract actions against Compex Litigation Support, LLC and Compex Legal Services, Inc. After their counsel withdrew, the appellants, as limited liability companies, were required to obtain new legal representation to proceed in the Delaware Supreme Court. Despite notices from the court clerk instructing them to secure counsel by a deadline, no appearance was entered, and the representatives failed to respond to a subsequent show cause order. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, deeming the lack of response as consent to dismissal under applicable Supreme Court rules.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved Keino S. Chrichlow's appeal from the Superior Court's denial of his request for a transcript at state expense to support his postconviction relief efforts. The Delaware Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction because the Delaware Constitution permits review only of final judgments in criminal cases, and this was an interlocutory appeal. Chrichlow did not respond to the court's notice to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves an appeal filed by Thomas Adams against Sandra Hall in the Delaware Supreme Court. The court issued a notice to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed because the appellant failed to make arrangements for the transcript payment or request a copy at state expense by the May 1, 2009 deadline. The appellant did not respond to the notice within the required 10-day period. The court therefore dismissed the appeal as unopposed pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 3(b) and 29(b).

procedure

This case involved an appeal by Walter Jacob Wisher, Jr. to the Delaware Supreme Court from a child support enforcement matter brought by the Division of Child Support Enforcement. The appellee moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that it was an interlocutory appeal not filed in compliance with Supreme Court Rule 42. The appellant did not respond to the motion, so under Supreme Court Rule 3(b)(2)(a) the dismissal was treated as unopposed. The court therefore dismissed the appeal pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 3(b) and 29(b).

family lawprocedure

This case involved an appeal by Gregory Denston to the Delaware Supreme Court from a lower court decision. On December 8, 2008, Denston filed a motion to dismiss his own appeal. The State did not file a response within the required ten-day period, rendering the motion unopposed. The court therefore dismissed the appeal pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 3(b)(2)(b).

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves an appeal by Ethan Randall from a decision by the Division of Family Services in Delaware family court proceedings. The Supreme Court of Delaware considered a motion for remand and a stipulation by the parties agreeing that the matter should return to the Family Court. The court ordered the case remanded to the Family Court specifically for the appointment of counsel and to allow further proceedings. Jurisdiction was not retained by the Supreme Court following the remand. The decision was based solely on the parties' agreement and the need to ensure counsel was provided before continuing.

family lawprocedure

In this case, Tyrone Guinn was convicted of Assault in a Detention Facility and, while serving the probationary portion of his sentence, was found to have committed a violation of probation. Guinn filed an untimely notice of appeal from the VOP finding after unsuccessfully attempting to contact his public defender to request a direct appeal. The Delaware Supreme Court considered the State's reply urging remand and decided to remand the matter to the Superior Court with instructions to vacate its May 13, 2008 VOP sentencing order and re-sentence Guinn with the assistance of counsel so that he could file a timely direct appeal.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involves an appeal by Adam Jerney against Valeant Pharmaceuticals International in the Delaware Supreme Court. The appellee filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on April 30, 2007, but the appellant did not file a response within the required ten-day period. The court therefore treated the motion as unopposed and dismissed the appeal pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 3(b) and 30(b).

procedurebusiness & regulatory