Lamberty v. State, 108 A.3d 1225

In 2004 Lamberty pled guilty to fourth‑degree rape and was designated a Tier II sex offender under Delaware’s SORS.
Tier II offenders must verify registration every six months at locations designated by the State Police Superintendent; homeless Tier II offenders must register every 30 days.
In Nov. 2012 Lamberty registered as homeless in Wilmington but failed to re‑register in Dec. 2012; he said he lacked money to travel to the reporting location and did not seek a fee waiver.
He was charged, convicted, and sentenced for Failure to Properly Report as a Registered Sex Offender under 11 Del. C. § 4121(r).
Lamberty moved to dismiss, arguing (1) § 4121(k)’s heightened requirements for homeless offenders violate Equal Protection, and (2) § 4120(g)(2) impermissibly delegates legislative power by allowing the Superintendent to designate reporting locations. The Superior Court denied dismissal; the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Lamberty's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Equal Protection of § 4121(k)	Section arbitrarily discriminates against homeless offenders by imposing more frequent reporting with only limited reporting sites	Classification is rationally related to public safety and monitoring recidivism because homeless persons lack fixed addresses and are more mobile	Statute is rationally related to legitimate state interest; no Equal Protection violation
Delegation to Superintendent re: reporting locations	Grant of authority to designate reporting locations is an unlawful delegation of legislative power	Statute supplies standards and permits reasonable regulations; delegation to an expert for administration is permissible	Delegation is lawful: statute provides adequate standards and limits discretion

Sheehan v. Oblates of St. Francis de Sales, 15 A.3d 1247 (Del. 2011) (constitutional review presumption of validity for legislation)
Wien v. State, 882 A.2d 183 (Del. 2005) (same presumption principle cited)
Helman v. State, 784 A.2d 1058 (Del. 2001) (purpose of SORS and burden for equal protection challenge)
In re Request of Governor for Advisory Opinion, 12 A.3d 1104 (Del. 2009) (standards for permissible delegation and deference to administrative expertise)
Prices Corner Liquors, Inc. v. Delaware Alcoholic Beverage Control Comm’n, 705 A.2d 571 (Del. 1998) (rational‑basis review description)
Sisson v. State, 903 A.2d 288 (Del. 2006) (equal protection basics and classifications)
State v. Baker, 720 A.2d 1139 (Del. 1998) (deference in constitutional review)
Marta v. Sullivan, 248 A.2d 608 (Del. 1968) (delegation doctrine: need for standards)
Atlantis I Condo. Ass’n v. Bryson, 403 A.2d 711 (Del. 1979) (delegation acceptable where statute provides adequate standards)
Durham, 191 A.2d 646 (Del. 1963) (authority on distinguishing law‑making vs. execution of law)

Disposition: Judgment of the Superior Court AFFIRMED.