Washington v. State

• Court: Supreme Court of Delaware
• Decided: April 14, 2026
• Docket: 272, 2025
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

MICHAEL WASHINGTON, § § No. 272, 2025 Defendant Below, § Appellant, § Court Below–Superior Court § of the State of Delaware v. § § Cr. ID Nos. 0909018475A&B (N) STATE OF DELAWARE, § § Appellee. §

Submitted: February 3, 2026 Decided: April 14, 2026

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; LEGROW and GRIFFITHS, Justices.

ORDER

After consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the appellee’s motion to

affirm, and the Superior Court record,1 it appears to the Court that:

(1) Michael Washington appeals the Superior Court’s denial of his motions

for the correction of an illegal sentence and a new trial. The State of Delaware has

moved to affirm the judgment below on the ground that it is manifest on the face of

Washington’s opening brief that his appeal is without merit. We agree and affirm.

1 The Court has also reviewed the documents that it received from the appellant on December 22, 2025; December 29, 2025; February 6, 2026; February 13, 2026; and February 25, 2026—some of which are styled as motions seeking various forms of relief—and has determined that the appellant is not entitled to the relief sought therein and that their contents do not affect the result of this appeal. (2) In 2010, a Superior Court jury found Washington guilty of two counts

of manslaughter and two counts of possession of a firearm during the commission

of a felony. Following a bench trial agreed to by the parties, the trial judge then

found Washington guilty of possession of a firearm by a person prohibited

(“PFBPP”). On February 11, 2011, the Superior Court sentenced Washington to a

total of sixty-four years of incarceration, followed by decreasing levels of

community supervision. We affirmed Washington’s convictions and sentence on

direct appeal. 2

(3) Between 2012 and 2024, Washington filed five unsuccessful motions

for postconviction relief.3 In 2013 and again in 2015, Washington unsuccessfully

moved for a new trial based on his alleged discovery of new evidence.4 Washington

has also unsuccessfully pursued federal habeas relief.5 Twice, we have warned

Washington that if he continues to file appeals from orders dismissing his untimely

2 Washington v. State, 2011 WL 4908250 (Del. Oct. 14, 2011). 3 See Washington v. State, 2017 WL 1573119 (Del. Apr. 28, 2017) (affirming the denial of Washington’s first motion for postconviction relief); Washington v. State, 2022 WL 1041267 (Del. Apr. 7, 2022) (affirming the denial of Washington’s second motion for postconviction relief); Washington v. State, 2022 WL 4088664, at *1 (Del. Sept. 6, 2022) (“The Superior Court did not err in treating the appellant’s motion to set aside judgment under Superior Court Civil Rules 55(c) and 60(b) as his third motion for postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 and summarily dismissing that motion.”); Washington v. State, 2024 WL 834777 (Del. Feb. 27, 2024) (affirming the Superior Court’s summary dismissal of Washington’s motion for an “Injunctive Administrative Hearing,” which the Superior Court treated as Washington’s fourth motion for postconviction relief); Washington v. State, 2024 WL 5265275 (Del. Dec. 31, 2024) (affirming the denial of Washington’s fifth motion for postconviction relief); 4 See State v. Washington, 2016 WL 6248463 (Del. Super. Ct. Oct. 21, 2016) (denying Washington’s second motion for a new trial under Superior Court Criminal Rule 33). 5 Washington v. May, 2022 WL 4598510 (D. Del. Sept. 30, 2022). 2 and repetitive claims in the Superior Court, he will be enjoined from filing future

appeals without leave of the Court.6

(4) In May 2025, Washington filed a motion for the correction of an illegal

sentence under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a), arguing that Erlinger v. United

States7 created a retroactively applicable rule that required a jury to find the elements

of PFBPP beyond a reasonable doubt and that counsel was ineffective for failing to

raise this issue in postconviction proceedings. On May 30, 2025, the Superior Court

denied Washington’s motion. Shortly thereafter, Washington filed a motion for a

new trial, arguing that postconviction counsel’s case file contains evidence entitling

him to a new trial. On June 25, 2025, the Superior Court denied that motion.

Washington appeals the denials of both motions.

(5) We affirm the Superior Court’s decisions. In Erlinger, the United

States Supreme Court considered a sentence imposed under the federal Armed

Career Criminal Act and noted that “[v]irtually any fact that increases the prescribed

range of penalties to which a criminal defendant is exposed must be resolved by a

unanimous jury beyond a reasonable doubt.” 8 Erlinger did not hold, as Washington

6 Washington, 2024 WL 834777, at *1 (“We warn the appellant that if he continues to file appeals from orders dismissing untimely and repetitive claims in the Superior Court, he will be enjoined from filing future appeals without leave of the Court.”); Washington, 2024 WL 5265275, at *1 (“We again warn Washington that if he continues to file appeals from orders dismissing his untimely and repetitive claims in the Superior Court, he will be enjoined from filing future appeals without leave of the Court.”). 7 602 U.S. 821 (2024). 8 Erlinger, 602 U.S. at 834 (citation modified). 3 alleges, that a jury must find the elements of a charge unanimously and beyond a

reasonable doubt where, as here, a defendant waives his right to a jury trial and

proceeds to a bench trial on that charge. 9 And ineffective-assistance-of-counsel

claims are not properly raised in a Rule 35(a) motion.10 With regard to Washington’s

motion for a new trial, the Superior Court correctly observed that “[a] motion for a

new trial based on the ground of newly discovered evidence may be made only

before or within two years after final judgment.” 11 The judgment in this case became

final when this Court affirmed Washington’s convictions and sentence in 2011.

(6) Finally, we have concluded that Washington’s filings constitute an

abuse of the judicial process and hereby enjoin Washington from proceeding in this

Court on any claim related to his 2010 convictions and sentence. Any request by

Washington to invoke the Court’s appellate or original jurisdiction in any matter

concerning his 2010 convictions and sentence must be accompanied by a sworn

affidavit containing the certifications required by 10 Del. C. § 8803(e).

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the State’s motion to

affirm is GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.

Washington is ENJOINED under 10 Del. C. § 8803(e) and this order from filing a

9 We note that at Washington’s request, the Superior Court severed the PFBPP charge from the remaining charges. 10 See Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998). 11 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 33. 4 future notice of appeal or extraordinary writ concerning his 2010 convictions and

sentence.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ N. Christopher Griffiths Justice