State v. Langston
This text of State v. Langston (State v. Langston) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior 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 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
STATE OF DELAWARE ) ID. No. 1508017483 ) In and for Kent County v. ) ) RK15-09-0051-01 ADARYLLE L. LANGSTON, ) Sex Child Abuse (F) ) Def`endant. ) ORDER
Submitted: January 2, 2018 Decided: January 26, 2018 On this 26th day of`January, 2018 upon consideration of` the Def`endant’ s Motion f`or Postconviction Relief`, the Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation, and the record in this case, it appears that: l. The defendant, Adarylle L. Langston (“Langston”), pled guilty at his Final Case Review on December 2, 2015 to one count of Sexual Abuse of` a Child by a Person in a Position of Trust, Authority, or Supervision in the First Degree, ll Del. C. § 778. He was also facing one count of Endangering the Welf`are of a Child, and one count of` Rape in the Fourth Degree. In exchange for the plea, nolle prosequis Were entered by the State on the two additional charges. The parties, as a part of the Plea Agreement, recommended a sentence of twenty-five years of incarceration suspended after five years, two of Which Were minimum mandatory, for probation. The Court agreed With the recommendation and sentenced Langston accordingly. 2. Langston did not appeal his conviction or sentence to the DelaWare Supreme Court. Instead he filed the pending motion for postconviction relief
pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 on November 14, 2016.
State v. Adarylle L. Langston ID No. 1508017483 January 26, 2018
3. The matter was referred to the Court Commissioner for findings of fact and recommendation pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 512(b) and Superior Court Criminal Rule 62. The Commissioner has filed a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court deny the Def`endant’s Motion for Postconviction Relief.
4. After the issuance of the Commissioner’ s Report, neither party filed an appeal.
NOW, THEREFORE, after a de novo review of the record in this action, and for the reasons stated in the Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation dated October 25, 2017,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation is adopted by the Court in its entirety. Accordingly, Movant’s Motion for Postconviction Relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 is hereby
DENIED.
/s/ Noel Eason Primos Judge
NEP/sz
oc: Prothonotary
cc: The Honorable Andrea M. Freud Denise L. Weeks-Tappan, Esquire Kathleen K. Amalfitano, Esquire Adarylle L. Langston, JTVCC
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
State v. Langston, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-langston-delsuperct-2018.