Nance v. State

903 A.2d 283 (Del. 2006) · Supreme Court of Delaware · May 18, 2006 · No. No. 460, 2005

Summary

The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed Willie Nance's convictions for four counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, along with drug convictions. The court held that imposing separate firearm convictions based on two firearms and two underlying drug felonies did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause because Delaware's statute reflected legislative intent to allow multiple convictions. The court also concluded that, because the issue was not raised below, review was for plain error and no error occurred.

Court
Supreme Court of Delaware
Writing for the Court
Holland, Justice; Berger, Justice; Ridgely, Justice
Jurisdiction
Delaware
Decision date
May 18, 2006
Docket number
No. 460, 2005
Procedural posture
Nance appealed his Superior Court convictions and sentences for four counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, possession with intent to deliver cocaine, and possession with intent to deliver marijuana. He argued for the first time on appeal that the four firearm convictions violated the Double Jeopardy Clause.
Standard of review
Constitutional issues are generally reviewed de novo, but constitutional issues not raised in the trial court are reviewed for plain error. Plain error must be so clearly prejudicial to substantial rights as to jeopardize the fairness and integrity of the trial process.
Precedential value
Published Delaware Supreme Court opinion; precedential.
Parties
Willie Nance v. State of Delaware
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

double jeopardyfifth amendmentstatutory interpretationcriminal procedureappellate procedure

Practice areas

criminal lawcriminal procedureconstitutional lawappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibited four separate convictions for possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony when the convictions were based on two firearms and two separate underlying drug felonies.
  2. Whether the unpreserved Double Jeopardy claim constituted plain error.

Holdings

  1. The Double Jeopardy Clause did not prohibit four separate convictions for possession of a deadly weapon during the commission of a felony because the Delaware legislature clearly intended separate weapons convictions for each deadly weapon and each separate underlying felony.
  2. There was no plain error because the four firearm convictions did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.

Key quotations

The legislative intent of the relevant statute was to impose multiple convictions for the prohibited conduct. Consequently, there is no violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause. (284-285)
The statute's unambiguous language supports the multiplication of counts of Possession of a Deadly Weapon During the Commission of a Felony by both the number of weapons as well as the number of separate underlying felonies. (288)

Factual background

Police investigating a shoplifting encountered Lamar Joe, who possessed suspected marijuana, a dagger, and cash. When officers went to the residence where Joe lived, Nance consented to their entry and later signed written consent to search the room he shared with Joe. The search revealed a shotgun, a handgun, cocaine, marijuana seeds, and drug-packaging materials. Nance was convicted of two underlying drug felonies and two firearm offenses associated with each drug felony.

Procedural history

The Superior Court of Delaware convicted Nance of the drug and firearm offenses and sentenced him to a total of twelve years of Level V incarceration followed by probation. Because Nance did not raise the Double Jeopardy objection below, the Supreme Court reviewed the constitutional claim for plain error and affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…