*1 Before STRINE , Chief Justice; VALIHURA , and SEITZ , Justices.
ORDER This 5 th day of October, 2016, after careful consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal, we find it evident that the final judgment of the Superior Court should be affirmed for the reasons stated in the court’s memorandum opinion dated June 29, 2015. [1]
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the final judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT: /s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. Justice competent to advise on Delaware law affirmatively misled him about his status. See Kipp v. State , 704 A.2d 839, 842 (Del. 1998); Long v. State , 65 A.2d 489, 497-99 (Del. 1949).
2
[1] In its June 29, 2015 opinion, the Superior Court mistakenly believed that Bradshaw intended to offer evidence that he had been told by someone in Pennsylvania that his Pennsylvania robbery conviction did not bar him from possessing a firearm or ammunition. Instead, both the State and Bradshaw agree that Bradshaw only sought to raise a failure of the Pennsylvania judge and his Pennsylvania attorney to advise him of his status, not any affirmative statements made by them about his status. The court’s misunderstanding of Bradshaw’s argument does not affect the outcome of the appeal. As explained in the Superior Court opinion, ignorance of the law is no defense to a crime, and Bradshaw does not claim an exception to the rule where someone