Powell v. State
153 A.3d 69
| Del. | 2016Background
- Derrick Powell was convicted of first-degree murder and related offenses in 2011; a jury recommended death 7–5 and the trial court imposed death. This Court affirmed in 2012.
- Powell sought postconviction relief; the Superior Court denied relief in May 2016 and Powell appealed; during that appeal he moved to vacate his death sentence based on Hurst and this Court’s subsequent decision in Rauf.
- In Rauf, this Court held Delaware’s capital-sentencing scheme unconstitutional under the Sixth Amendment because judges, not unanimous juries beyond a reasonable doubt, made findings necessary to impose death, and the statute’s errors were not severable.
- The narrow question here was whether Rauf’s holding applies retroactively to Powell’s already-final death sentence adjudicated under Delaware law.
- The Court concluded Rauf announces a watershed procedural rule (requiring jury findings and proof beyond a reasonable doubt for aggravators) that must be applied retroactively in Delaware, vacated Powell’s death sentence, and resentenced him to life without parole.
Issues
| Issue | Powell's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rauf/Hurst apply retroactively to Powell’s final death sentence | Rauf and Hurst announce rules that must be applied retroactively to his case | Reliance on Summerlin: Ring-like rule not retroactive; Rauf should not apply retroactively | Rauf is retroactive in Delaware; Powell’s death sentence vacated and resentenced to life without no parole |
| Whether Delaware’s death statute required jury unanimity and beyond‑reasonable‑doubt burden | Rauf requires unanimous jury findings and BRD burden for aggravators; Winship/Apprendi principles support retroactivity | State argued Teague/Summerlin bar or limit retroactivity | Court held Rauf implements both Sixth Amendment jury finding and Due Process BRD burden and is a watershed rule |
| Whether the change in burden of proof is substantive/procedural for retroactivity | Powell: raising burden to BRD affects truth‑finding—like Winship—and thus retroactive | State: analogies to Ring/Summerlin aim to limit retroactivity | Court held the BRD requirement is central to accurate fact‑finding and falls within Teague’s watershed exception (retroactive) |
| Remedy upon retroactive application | Powell: vacate death sentence and resentence to life without parole | State: maintain conviction and death sentence (implicit) | Court vacated death sentence and imposed life imprisonment without benefit of parole or reduction |
Key Cases Cited
- Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (U.S. 2016) (Sixth Amendment requires jury, not judge, to find facts necessary for death sentence)
- Rauf v. State, 145 A.3d 430 (Del. 2016) (Delaware death‑penalty statute unconstitutional; jury must unanimously find aggravators beyond a reasonable doubt; defects not severable)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (framework for retroactivity of new rules on collateral review)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (any fact increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proved BRD)
- Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002) (capital defendants entitled to jury determination of aggravating facts used to impose death)
- Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348 (2004) (Ring held non‑retroactive on collateral review under federal habeas analysis)
- In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970) (Due Process requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt for elements of crimes)
- Ivan V. v. City of New York, 407 U.S. 203 (1972) (Winship rule on burden of proof applied retroactively because it is necessary for reliable fact‑finding)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (states not bound by Teague on collateral review; substantive rules may require retroactivity under the Constitution)