Butcher v. State, 171 A.3d 537

Defendant Prentiss Butcher was arrested in March 2015 for possessing a firearm; convicted in November 2015 of Person Prohibited and related weapons offenses.
He had two prior felony convictions: Possession Within 300 (2010) and Possession with Intent to Deliver Heroin (2011).
11 Del. C. § 1448(e)(1)(c) imposes a 10-year mandatory minimum when a defendant has 2+ prior "violent felony" convictions; § 1448(e)(3) defines "violent felony" by reference to § 4201(c).
In 2011 the General Assembly (Ned Carpenter Act) removed Possession Within 300 from the list in § 4201(c), so by March 2015 that offense was no longer designated a "violent felony."
At sentencing the Superior Court treated the 2010 Possession Within 300 conviction as a violent felony (relying on dicta in French), imposed enhanced consecutive sentences, and Butcher appealed.
The Supreme Court considered whether the version of § 4201(c) that controls is the one in effect when the predicate convictions occurred or the one in effect when the new § 1448 offense was committed.

Issue	Butcher's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Which version of § 4201(c) controls for determining whether a prior conviction is a § 1448(e) "violent felony" — the version in effect when the predicate conviction occurred, or the version in effect when the § 1448 offense was committed?	The version in effect when Butcher committed the § 1448 offense (2015) controls; Possession Within 300 had been removed by then and cannot be a predicate.	A prior conviction labeled a violent felony remains a "violent felon" for all future conduct regardless of later legislative reclassification; the earlier designation should count.	The Court held the version of § 4201(c) in effect when the § 1448 offense was committed controls; Possession Within 300 no longer counted, so the Superior Court erred and resentencing is required.

Sommers v. State, 11 A.3d 228 (Del. 2010) (convictions used as predicates must be for crimes currently listed in § 4201(c))
French v. State, 38 A.3d 289 (Del. 2012) (discussed habitual-offender treatment; certain language relied on by State was dicta and not controlling here)
Ross v. State, 990 A.2d 424 (Del. 2010) (statutory language controls when unambiguous)
Lewis v. State, 144 A.3d 1109 (Del. 2016) (interpretation of § 211 saving clause and preservation of prosecutions under repealed statutes)
Watson v. State, 892 A.2d 366 (Del. 2005) (application of statutory provisions to prior convictions where offense classifications change)