IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
HOWARD WALSH, §
§
Defendant Below, § No. 1, 2017
Appellant, §
§ Court Below: Superior Court
v. § of the State of Delaware
§
STATE OF DELAWARE, § Cr. ID. No. 14110004172 (N)
§
Plaintiff Below, §
Appellee. §
Submitted: May 12, 2017
Decided: June 30, 2017
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices.
ORDER
This 30th 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
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.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior
Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Karen L. Valihura
Justice
2