CourtListener 10736845•Henry v. State
Full text
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
OLIVER HENRY, §
§ No. 246, 2025
Defendant Below, §
Appellant, § Court Below—Superior Court
§ of the State of Delaware
v. §
§ Cr. ID No. 2301001270 (N)
STATE OF DELAWARE, §
§
Appellee. §
Submitted: October 1, 2025
Decided: November 14, 2025
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and GRIFFITHS, Justices.
ORDER
After careful consideration of the opening brief, the motion to affirm, and the
record on appeal, the Court concludes that the judgment of the Superior Court should
be affirmed on the basis of the Superior Court’s May 6, 2025 order denying the
appellant’s motion under Superior Court Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(a). The
Superior Court imposed a sentence within the statutory range for second-degree
murder, and the sentence therefore is not illegal under Apprendi v. New Jersey1 or
Blakely v. Washington.2
1
530 U.S. 466 (2000).
2
542 U.S. 296 (2004). See Shabazz v. State, 2005 WL 1413234, at *1 (Del. June 14, 2005) (“In
this case, Shabazz’s sentence fell within the statutory range of authorized sentences for second
degree burglary. As we have held in similar cases, neither Apprendi nor Blakely impact this
outcome given the voluntary and nonbinding nature of Delaware's sentencing guidelines.” (citation
omitted)).
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Affirm is
GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr.
Chief Justice
2
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.