Brown v. State
This text of Brown v. State (Brown v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
GREGORY BROWN, § § No. 317, 2020 Defendant Below, § Appellant, § Court Below—Superior Court § of the State of Delaware v. § § Cr. ID. No: N1908014450 STATE OF DELAWARE, § § Plaintiff Below, § Appellee. §
Submitted: June 16, 2021 Decided: June 24, 2021
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA, VAUGHN, TRAYNOR, and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Justices, constituting the Court en banc. ORDER This 24th day of June, 2021, after careful consideration of the parties’
arguments, briefs, and the record on appeal, it appears to the Court that the judgment
of the Superior Court as reflected in its August 20, 2020 Sentence Order and August
31, 2020 Order1 should be affirmed.
Neither the multiplicity doctrine nor the Double Jeopardy Clauses in the
United States and Delaware Constitutions barred the Superior Court’s consideration
of Brown’s convictions of possession of a firearm by a person prohibited (PFBPP)
1 State v. Brown, 2020 WL 5122968 (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 20, 2020) (written order issued August 31, 2020). and possession of ammunition by a person prohibited (PABPP), which were based
on Gregory Brown’s simultaneous possession of a firearm and ammunition, as
separate offenses for sentencing purposes. This is so because each of the charges
requires proof of a fact which the other does not—for PFBPP, knowing possession
of a firearm; for PABPP, knowing possession of ammunition.2 We leave for another
day the question ostensibly answered, but without analysis or the citation of
authority, in Buchanan v. State:3 whether 11 Del. C. § 1448 contemplates separate
PFBPP counts—and separate sentencing upon conviction—for the simultaneous
possession of multiple firearms.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior
Court is affirmed.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Gary F. Traynor Justice
2 See Nance v. State, 903 A.2d 283, 286 (Del. 2006) (quoting Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 294, 304 (1932)). 3 981 A.2d 1098 (Del. 2009).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Brown v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-state-del-2021.