Title: Underwood v. State; Carter v. State; Miller v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ASHLEY UNDERWOOD,1 
 
 
Petitioner, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Respondent, 
 
and 
 
KIM CARTER, 
 
Petitioner, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Respondent 
 
and 
 
FIONA MILLER, on behalf of 
JACKIE MILLER, 
 
Petitioner, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Respondent. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 546, 2013 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Certification of Question of 
§  Law from the Family Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  No. 0506009856, 
§  No. JK97-1047 
§  No. 1210005280 
§   
§   
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
                                                          
 
1 The Court has assigned pseudonyms to the parties pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 7(d). 
 
2
 
 
 
 
Submitted: October 10, 2013 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: October 16, 2013 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 16th day of October 2013, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The Family Court of the State of Delaware has certified a question to 
this Court in accordance with the Delaware Constitution, art. IV, § 11(8) and 
Delaware Supreme Court Rule 41.   
 
(2) 
The basis for the certification arises from a split in decisions among 
Family Court judges regarding whether a petitioner’s adult conviction for a Title 
21 traffic offense mandates the denial of a petitioner’s motion for expungement of 
a juvenile record.  
 
(3) 
The Family Court has certified the following question to this Court for 
disposition in accordance with Rule 41: 
Whether the conviction of a Title 21 traffic offense constitutes a 
“subsequent adjudication of delinquency or adult conviction” under the 
juvenile expungement statutes [DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 10, §§ 1017-18], 
thereby prohibiting the expungement of an otherwise eligible juvenile 
record? 
 
(4) 
The Family Court states that the material facts in these cases are not in 
dispute and that the question presented requires an immediate determination by the 
 
3
Supreme Court because the decisions of the Family Court are conflicting upon the 
question of law and the question of law relates to the construction of a statute that 
has not been, but should be, settled by this Court.  
 
(5) 
After careful consideration, we have determined that certification is 
not necessary and should be REFUSED.  The question of law sought to be certified 
is currently before this Court for consideration in an appeal, Fuller v. State, No. 
460, 2013, that is presently being briefed.  The Court concludes that it is preferable 
to consider the question presented as part of that ongoing appeal rather than 
accepting the Family Court’s certification.   
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the certification of question of 
law is hereby REFUSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice