Zebroski v. State
179 A.3d 855
Del.2018Background
- In 1996 Craig Zebroski (age 18 at offense) committed a robbery during which he intentionally shot and killed a gas-station attendant; he was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder (intentional and felony murder).
- Jury recommended death by 9–3 under Delaware’s then-capital scheme; conviction and death sentence were affirmed on direct appeal.
- Delaware Supreme Court’s decision in Rauf v. State found parts of 11 Del. C. § 4209’s capital sentencing procedures violated the Sixth Amendment; Powell held Rauf is retroactive and vacated death sentences accordingly.
- 11 Del. C. § 4209 prescribes death or life without parole for first-degree murder; § 4205 sets a 15-years-to-life range for other Class A felonies.
- After Zebroski’s death sentence was vacated, the parties disputed whether he should receive mandatory life without parole (per § 4209) or 15 years–life (per § 4205) because he argued Rauf invalidated all of § 4209 or that the life-without-parole alternative is inseverable.
- Zebroski also raised Eighth Amendment and Due Process challenges to mandatory life without parole given he was 18 at the time of the crime.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rauf invalidated entire § 4209 (including life-without-parole) so resentencing must follow § 4205 15–years-to-life | Rauf’s severability analysis invalidated all of § 4209; therefore § 4209 is unenforceable and § 4205 applies | Rauf only addressed severability within the capital scheme to preserve death; Powell held the life-without-parole alternative survives and should be imposed when death is vacated | Rejected plaintiff. Rauf did not invalidate the entire § 4209; Powell controls—life without parole is the proper alternative sentence. |
| Whether omission from 1974 statutory language shows legislature intended life-without-parole to be inseverable | Omission of the contingency language from current § 4209 shows legislature did not intend the alternative to be severable | The 1974 text was a contingency for an earlier mandatory-death statute; omission reflects restoration of the life-without-parole alternative, not a changed intent | Rejected plaintiff. Historical context explains omission; § 4209’s life-without-parole remains the designated alternative. |
| Whether mandatory life-without-parole for an 18-year-old violates the Eighth Amendment (Miller line) | Neuroscience shows brain development continues past 18; Miller’s protections should extend to 18-year-olds | Supreme Court precedent draws the juvenile/adult line at 18; only the U.S. Supreme Court can change that categorical rule; Roper/Miller/Graham relied on both science and societal markers | Rejected plaintiff. The Court is bound by the U.S. Supreme Court’s categorical age line at 18; plaintiff’s argument to extend Miller fails. |
| Whether due process or Eighth Amendment proportionality or notice principles bar mandatory life-without-parole here | Trial strategy, lack of notice, and relative youth show unfairness; Delaware’s threshold for life-without-parole is unusually low | Defendant points to aggravating factor (felony murder) and state sentencing authority; proportionality challenges are rare and fact-intensive and Zebroski didn’t mount one | Rejected plaintiff. No due process notice violation; proportionality argument not properly pursued and unlikely to succeed given severity and aggravators. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rauf v. State, 145 A.3d 430 (Del. 2016) (invalidated parts of § 4209 capital scheme and held severability to preserve death penalty was not possible)
- Powell v. State, 153 A.3d 69 (Del. 2016) (held Rauf is retroactive and directed that vacated death sentences be replaced by life without parole under § 4209)
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (categorically forbids mandatory life without parole for offenders under 18)
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (held death penalty unconstitutional for offenders under 18 and explained rationale for age 18 line)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (limited life-without-parole for juveniles in nonhomicide cases and discussed developmental science underpinning juvenile rules)
- Zebroski v. State, 715 A.2d 75 (Del. 1998) (opinion on direct appeal affirming conviction and original death sentence)