Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Stoner v. State

Supreme Court of Delaware

July 11, 2019

Arthur STONER, Respondent Below, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Delaware, Petitioner Below, Appellee.

         Submitted: May 8, 2019

Page 586

          Court Below: Family Court of the State of Delaware, ID. No. 1711009911 (N)

         Upon appeal from the Family Court. REVERSED and REMANDED.

         Kevin P. Tray, Esquire, Wilmington, Delaware for Appellant, Arthur Stoner.

         Sean P. Lugg, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Wilmington, Delaware for Appellee, State of Delaware.

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

         OPINION

         VAUGHN, Justice:

          I. INTRODUCTION

         The appellant, Arthur Stoner,[1] appeals from a Family Court order finding him delinquent of Robbery in the Second Degree and Conspiracy in the Second Degree. He makes three claims on appeal. First, he contends that the finding that he committed Conspiracy in the Second Degree violated his right to due process because it was based on a finding that he violated an uncharged subsection of the conspiracy statute. Second, he contends that there was insufficient evidence to find him delinquent of Robbery in the Second Degree. In particular, he contends that the Family Court misconstrued a part of the robbery statute, 11 Del. C. § 831(b), which provides that "the phrase ‘in the course of committing theft’ includes any act which occurs ... in immediate flight after the attempt or commission of the theft." Third, he contends that 11 Del. C. § 512(1), the subsection of the conspiracy statute under which he was found delinquent, is unconstitutionally vague because it does not expressly include the requirement of an overt act.

         The State agrees that the Family Court erred when it found Stoner delinquent for violating an uncharged subsection of the conspiracy statute. According to the State, "The trial court effectively convicted Stoner of an offense for which the State had

Page 587

not charged him. His adjudication of second degree conspiracy should be vacated."[2] Because the State concedes error and agrees that Stoner’s adjudication of delinquency as to Conspiracy in the Second Degree should be vacated, we accept its concession and have no further need to discuss Stoner’s first contention. For this same reason, Stoner’s third contention, that 11 Del. C. § 512(1) is unconstitutionally vague, need not be addressed. We need address only Stoner’s contentions relating to the Family Court’s finding of delinquency for Robbery in the Second Degree.

          II. FACTS AND ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.