Case Title: Walls v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 671,2009

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2011-07-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JOSEPH WALLS, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 671, 2009 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 86001399DI 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
     Submitted:  July 14, 2011 
 
 
 
 
        Decided:  July 20, 2011 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, BERGER, JACOBS and 
RIDGELY, Justices (constituting the Court en Banc). 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 20th day of July 2011, upon consideration of the parties’ briefs 
and the record on appeal, Walls’ motions for reargument and rehearing en 
Banc and the State’s responses to those motions, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The appellant, Joseph Walls, filed this appeal from the Superior 
Court’s judgment, dated November 6, 2009, which denied his motion for 
correction of sentence and summarily dismissed his motion for 
postconviction relief.  This matter was stayed pending briefing in a related 
appeal.  This Court entered an Order in this appeal on June 13, 2011, that is 
rescinded with the entry of this Order. 
 
2
(2) 
We find no merit to Walls’ appeal.  Accordingly, the judgment 
of the Superior Court shall be affirmed. 
 
(3) 
The record reflects that Walls is serving a lengthy prison 
sentence following his convictions in 1988 for robbery, kidnapping and 
related charges.  This Court affirmed his convictions on direct appeal.1  
Since that time, Walls has filed several unsuccessful postconviction 
petitions.2  In September 2009, Walls filed a motion to correct an illegal 
sentence and for postconviction relief, which the Superior Court denied.  
This appeal followed. 
 
(4) 
Walls raises three issues in his opening brief on appeal.  First, 
he contends that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support his 
conviction for kidnapping first degree. Second, he asserts that his 
convictions for kidnapping and robbery must be overturned because he was 
entitled to an accomplice liability instruction under title 11, section 274 of 
the Delaware Code.  Third, Walls contends that the trial judge improperly 
instructed the jury on accomplice liability. 
 
(5) 
On June 13, 2011, this Court entered an Order that held the 
Superior Court properly concluded all of Walls’ claims were procedurally 
                                                 
1 Walls v. State, 1990 WL 17759 (Del. Feb. 8, 1990). 
2 See, e.g., Walls v. State, 2008 WL 187948 (Del. Jan. 7, 2008) (affirming denial of 
second motion for postconviction relief). 
 
3
barred.  Walls filed motions for reargument and rehearing en Banc.  In those 
motions, Walls asserts that the second and third issues he raises in this Court 
were not presented in the Superior Court.  In response to Walls’ motions, the 
State agrees that the second and third issues were not presented to the 
Superior Court. 
 
(6) 
We have concluded that the second and third issues raised by 
Walls in this appeal were not presented to the Superior Court.  Therefore, 
pursuant to Rule 8, those two issues will not be addressed by this Court 
either substantively or for procedural bars.  All of the other claims in Walls’ 
motions for reargument and rehearing en Banc are denied.   
 
(7) 
We have also concluded that the first issue raised by Walls in 
this appeal was properly denied by the Superior Court for the reasons stated 
in its decision dated November 6, 2009. 
 
(8) 
This Court’s Order dated June 13, 2011 is rescinded and 
replaced by this Order. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ordered that the judgment of 
the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice