Washington v. State

── Washington v. State ── Court: Supreme Court of Delaware Date: April 14, 2026 Category: General 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 W