History
  • No items yet
midpage
Howard Walsh v. State of Delaware
1, 2017
Del.
Jun 30, 2017
Check Treatment

*1 Before STRINE , Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN , Justices.

O R D E R

This 30 th day of June 2017, after careful consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal, we find it evident that the judgment below should be affirmed on the basis of the Superior Court’s well-reasoned order, dated December 12, 2016, denying the appellant’s motion to reduce and correct sentence. [1] We decline to consider arguments the appellant raises for the first time on appeal. [2] *2 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT: /s/ Karen L. Valihura Justice

2

[1] State v. Walsh , 2016 WL 7191539 (Del. Super. Ct. Dec. 12, 2016).

[2] Supr. Ct. R. 8. The appellant argues for the first time on appeal that the amendment of 11 Del. C. § 3901 to give Superior Court judges discretion to impose concurrent sentences under certain circumstances violates the Ex Post Facto Clause, 11 Del. C. § 1448 discriminates against people with previous violent felony convictions, Possession of a Firearm by a Person Prohibited is not a violent felony, and his consecutive sentences constitute violate the Eighth Amendment.

Case Details

Case Name: Howard Walsh v. State of Delaware
Court Name: Supreme Court of Delaware
Date Published: Jun 30, 2017
Docket Number: 1, 2017
Court Abbreviation: Del.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.