IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE )

)

v. ) I.D. No. 2301014859

) 

MEHKI WILSON, )

)

Defendant. )

Submitted: August 16, 2023

Decided: August 21, 2023

Upon Defendant Mehki Wilson’s Motion Pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 1011 to Transfer 

Charges to the Family Court

DENIED.

ORDER 

Daniel McBride, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 

820 North French Street, Wilmington, DE 19801, Attorney for the State of 

Delaware.

Sager Shah, Esquire, 704 N. King Street, Suite 205, Wilmington, DE 19801, 

Attorney for Defendant Mehki Wilson.

WHARTON, J. 
2

This 21st day of August 2023, upon consideration of Defendant Mehki 

Wilson’s Motion Pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 1011 to Transfer Charges to the Family 

Court, it appears to the Court that:

1. Defendant Mehki Wilson (“Wilson”) has been charged by indictment 

with Robbery First Degree (two counts), Conspiracy Second Degree, Assault Second

Degree, Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony (“PFDCF”)

(two counts, one related to the robbery charge and one to the assault charge), and 

misdemeanor Theft.

1

 It appears that the robbery charges advance different theories 

of liability for the same robbery and not distinct robberies. He seeks to transfer these 

charges to Family Court under 10 Del. C. §1011. A reverse amenability hearing was 

held on August 16, 2023. Testifying at the hearing for the State were Det. Adam 

Holubinka (“Det. Holubinka”) of the New Castle County Police Department 

(“NCCPD”) and Investigator Daniel Masi (“Inv. Masi”), a criminal intelligence 

investigator with the Delaware Department of Justice. Testifying for Wilson were 

Master Family Service Specialist Genevieve Franklin (“Ms. Franklin”) of the 

Department of Services for Children, Youth, & Their Families (“DSCYF”), Division 

of Youth Rehabilitative Services (“DYRS”), Community Services and Jared B. 

Moore, Psy. D (“Dr. Moore”). The Court received reports authored by Ms. Franklin 

1

Indictment.
3

and Dr. Moore as well as Dr. Moore’s curriculum vitae into evidence. The Court 

also received into evidence nine photographs through the testimony of Inv. Masi.

2. Det. Holubinka provided the State’s version of the facts supporting the 

charges based on his interview of the complaining witness, CB, information 

provided to him by other NCCPD officers, and his own investigation. The charges 

against Wilson are the result of a meeting Wilson arranged with CB. On January 

26, 2023, Wilson invited CB to play video games and “smoke”2at Wilson’s 

grandmother’s house. The invitation was extended via Instagram. CB drove to 

Oakmont Park where he was supposed to meet Wilson. Wilson arrived in a tan 

Chevy Malibu just before 4:00 p.m., got out of the passenger seat and got in CB’s 

car in the front passenger seat. The two exchanged pleasantries for a time until an 

unknown male entered the rear of CB’s vehicle and pointed a gun at CB. The 

unknown man told Wilson the “run [CB’s] pockets” while threatening to shoot CB. 

Wilson took two cell phones that were in a cup holder and CB’s wallet form his 

jacket. The unknown male hit CB with the gun causing significant swelling. Wilson 

and the unknown male returned to the tan Malibu which was driven by a third 

individual and fled. CB described the unknown man as black, older and heavier than 

Wilson with some facial hair, and wearing a black hoody and sweat pants. He 

described the gun as a tan Glock with a flashlight and an extended magazine. 

2 Slang for smoke marijuana.
4

3. Pole cameras showed the tan Malibu entering Oakmont at 3:47 p.m. 

and leaving at 3:53. The license plate was captured by license plate readers. The 

license plate showed that the Malibu was registered to co-defendant Marcus Waller’s 

(“Waller”) mother. NCCPD put out a BOLO3for the vehicle, resulting in it being 

stopped on January 29th. The vehicle was occupied by Waller who fled and 

attempted to discard a gun. Waller was captured and the gun recovered. The gun 

was a tan Glock with an extended magazine and a flashlight/laser attachment. CB’s 

driver’s license was found in a search of the vehicle. CB identified a photograph of 

Wilson who was arrested on January 31st. 

4. While juvenile crimes usually are handled in Family Court,4this Court 

maintains original jurisdiction over juveniles, aged 16 and older, who commit certain 

enumerated crimes.5 These crimes include, as charged here, Robbery in the First 

Degree.6 Despite having jurisdiction, this Court has the discretion to transfer these 

charges to Family Court if it finds such a transfer to be in the interest of justice.7 

5. Upon petition from the juvenile, this Court must hold a reverse 

amenability hearing and weigh the factors set forth in 10 Del. C. §1011(b) before 

making a decision where a juvenile’s charges should be tried. The purpose of this 

3 Be On Look Out.

4 State v. Anderson, 385 A.2d 738, 739 (Del. Super. Ct. 1978).

5

Id. at 739–40 (citing 10 Del. C. §938, redesignated as 10 Del. C. §1010 and 

amended by 69 Laws 1993, ch. 335, §1, eff. July 8, 1994). See also 10 Del. C. §921. 

6 10 Del. C. §1010(a)(1).

7 10 Del. C. §1011(b).
5

hearing is to place a judicial check on the prosecutorial charging of juveniles.8 

“Since a juvenile charged with a designated felony in the Superior Court has lost the 

benefit of Family Court adjudication by statutory pronouncement, there is [a] 

presumption that a need exists for adult discipline and legal restraint. Hence, the 

burden is upon the juvenile to demonstrate the contrary.”9

6. Prior to addressing § 1011(b)’s factors, “this Court must preliminarily 

determine whether the State has made out a prima facie case against the 

juvenile[.]”10 The Court considers “whether there is a fair likelihood that [the 

defendant] will be convicted of the crimes charged.”11 Furthermore, “[a] real 

probability must exist that a reasonable jury could convict the juvenile based on the 

totality of the evidence, assuming that the evidence introduced at the [reverse 

amenability] hearing is unrebutted by the juvenile at trial.”12

7. Based on the testimony of Det. Holubinka, the Court finds that there is 

a fair likelihood of conviction, in other words there is real probability that a

reasonable jury could find Wilson guilty of all charges. In fact, Wilson conceded as 

much at the hearing. Identity is not an issue as CB and Wilson know each other. 

Further, CB’s description of events is supported by his injuries, the surveillance 

8 See State v. Anderson, 697 A.2d 379, 383 (Del. 1997) (citations omitted).

9 Anderson, 385 A.2d at 740 (citation omitted).

10 State v. Harper, 2014 WL 1303012, at *5 (Del. Super. Ct. March 31, 2014) (citing 

Marine v. State, 624 A.2d 1181, 1185 (Del. 1993)).

11 Id.

12 Id. (citation omitted).
6

videos of the defendants’ vehicle, the recovery of the handgun discarded by Waller 

matchings the description provided by CB, and the recovery of CB driver’s license 

in Waller’s vehicle.

8. Returning to the § 1011(b) factors, the first is the nature of the present 

offense and the extent and nature of the defendant’s prior record. This factor is twopronged.13

 Here, the charges are premeditated, violent and serious, including three 

Class B felonies, but Wilson’s prior record is minimal with only a probation before 

adjudication disposition for a possession of drug paraphernalia charge. Several other 

charges, some of which were serious, were nolle prossed. This first factor favors 

neither Wilson, nor the State.

9. The second factor under § 1011(b) is the nature of past treatment and 

the defendant’s response. Due to his minimal record, Wilson has had little 

opportunity to be exposed to treatment, but has done well while detained, achieving 

“Gold” status and successfully participating in the educational program at the New 

Castle County Detention Center. This factor favors Wilson. 

10. The third factor under § 1011(b) is whether the interests of society and 

Wilson would be better served by a trial in the Family Court or in the Superior Court. 

Both Ms. Franklin, on behalf of DYRS, and Dr. Moore recommend resolution of the 

charges in Family Court. 

13 See 10 Del. C. §1011(b)(1).
7

11. Ms. Franklin notes that, while Wilson has been monitored by DRYS 

community supervision for the past year and five months, “he has not had the benefit 

of residential placement or community-based services and has been detained since 

1/31/2023.”14 She recommends Family Court disposition so that Wilson may have 

the opportunity to benefit from those services.

13. Dr. Moore conducted a forensic psychological evaluation of Wilson

and his report was introduced into evidence at the hearing.15 The report identified 

the relevant documents Dr. Moore reviewed, cited Wilson’s prior legal information, 

and discussed his personal and family history, and his psychiatric, medical, and 

substance abuse histories.16 The report also included sections entitled “Clinical 

Presentation and Mental Status Exam,” “DSM-V-TR Psychiatric Diagnosis,” and 

“Amenability to Juvenile Justice Rehabilitation.”17 

14. Dr. Moore conducted the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in 

Youth (“SAVRY”).18 The SAVRY allows the clinician the ability to assess risk in 

a manner unique to each case.19 It identifies unchanging historical risk factors, 

dynamic social/contextual and individual/clinical risk factors, and protective factors 

which mitigate the risk for future violence.20 SAVRY results showed Wilson to have 

14 Def.’s Ex. 1, Reverse Amenability Report, Aug. 3, 2023, at 6. 

15 Def.’s Ex. 3, Forensic Psychological Evaluation, July 12, 2023.

16 Id. at 1-5. 

17 Id. at 5-14.

18 Id. at 6.

19 Id.

20 Id. 
8

an overall low risk score in the historical risk category.

21

 His overall score in the 

social/contextual risk category was moderate.22 His overall rating in the 

individual/clinical risk factors was low.23 In his testimony and in his report, Dr. 

Moore also emphasized studies that show that adolescents and young adults have 

not fully developed emotionally and socially. He recommended that Wilson be 

provided with programming at the Family Court level and not at the adult level, 

where he thought programming was nearly non-existent for someone like Wilson. 

15. Of significance to the Court in assessing in what court the needs of 

society, and to some lesser degree Wilson, would be better met is the testimony of 

Inv. Masi. Inv. Masi can fairly be described, based on his training and experience, 

as a criminal street gang expert. Through him the State introduced a series of 

Instagram photographs from Wilson’s Instagram account depicting Wilson and 

others displaying hand gestures, clothing, and terminology used by the 

Neighborhood Rollin’ 60’s Crips. The Neighborhood Rollin’ 60’s Crips is a violent 

national gang with its origins in west Los Angeles. Membership is usually gained 

by “putting in work,” meaning committing acts of violence. As national gang, it is 

more intimidating than what Inv. Masi described as hybrid local gangs such as 

NorthPak.24 Leaving a national gang is very hard and requires a level of approval 

21 Id.

22 Id. at 7.

23 Id. at 8. 

24 The Court is familiar with NorthPak and its record of homicidal violence.
9

not available locally. Inv. Masi identified Wilson as a member of the Neighborhood 

Rollin’ 60’s Crips.

16. Neither Ms. Franklin, nor Dr. Moore were aware of Wilson’s gang 

membership, although Dr. Moore allowed that gang participation has the potential 

to increase risk.25 Because they were unaware of Wilson’s gang affiliation, Ms. 

Franklin and Dr. Moore did not have an accurate understanding of the societal risk 

he presents. This knowledge deficiency seriously undermines their recommendation 

that Wilson’s charges be sent to Family Court. Wilson turns 18 on January 3, 2024. 

Even if his charges were to be resolved promptly in Family Court, it is unlikely that 

programming for him could begin until nearly the end of this year. Potentially, he 

could be sentenced to six months at Level V at Ferris School followed by 90 days at 

a Level IV cottage, followed by community supervision until he is 19. When he is 

placed on community supervision, the Court assumes, because it has not been told 

otherwise, that Wilson will be returned to the same place where he became affiliated 

with the Neighborhood Rollin’ 60’s Crips. Under these circumstances, it is 

inconceivable to the Court that the juvenile system could provide programming 

sufficient to immunize Wilson from the desire (or necessity) to return to the gang, 

particularly given the difficulty he would encounter in attempting to leave it.

25 The Court is unaware of Dr. Moore’s familiarity with criminal street gangs, but 

it is almost certainly lees that Inv. Masi’s. 
10

17. The benefit to society of not having a gang member amongst it is 

obvious. While the current charges would be Wilson’s first violent felony 

convictions should he be convicted, membership in a violent national street gang 

such as the Neighborhood Rollin’ 60’s Crips creates a significant risk that it would 

not be his last.26 This factors weighs significantly against transfer to Family Court.

18. The Court, having weighed the factors under § 1011(b), finds that 

Wilson has not met his burden of demonstrating that his charges should be resolved 

in Family Court. His motion to transfer is DENIED. 

19. Wilson also is charged with two counts of PFDCF. The provisions of 

11 Del. C. § 1447A(f) mandate that “[e]very person charged under this section over 

16 years, who, following an evidentiary hearing where the Superior Court finds 

proof positive or presumption great that the accused used, displayed, or discharged 

a firearm during the commission of a Title 11 or Title 13 violent felony...shall be 

tried as an adult, notwithstanding any contrary provisions or statutes governing the 

Family Court or any other state law.” At the time of the alleged offenses on January 

26, 2023, Wilson, whose date of birth is January 3, 2006, was 17 years old. 

20. Both Assault Second Degree and Robbery First Degree are violent 

felonies.27 Therefore, the PFDCF charge must be tried in Superior Court if the Court 

26 It is the common fate of young gang members that either they become homicide 

victims or are sentenced to decades of incarceration. Perhaps, if he is convicted and 

sentenced in the Superior Court on these charges, Wilson can avoid either of those 

outcomes. 

27 11 Del. C. § 4201(c) and (d).
11

finds “proof positive or presumption great” that Wilson used, displayed, or 

discharged a firearm while committing Assault in the Second Degree or Robbery in 

the First Degree. But, here, the State’s theory of liability for Wilson is that he was 

an accomplice to his codefendant Waller who had actual possession of the firearm. 

21. Thus, the issue is whether there is “proof positive and presumption great 

that Wilson used, displayed, or discharged a firearm during the commission of the 

violent felonies of Robbery First Degree and Assault Second Degree, mandating

Superior Court jurisdiction for the PDWDCF charges. The resolution of that issue 

turns on whether the meaning of the language of § 1447A(f) that “the accused used, 

displayed, or discharged a firearm during the commission of a Title 11 or Title 13 

violent felony” encompasses accomplice liability or is limited to the actual defendant 

before the Court. 

22. Citing no case law to support its position,

28 but relying on 11 Del. C. § 

271, the State argues that Waller’s use and display of the firearm is sufficient to 

mandate jurisdiction in this Court over Wilson. That section provides that “A person 

is guilty of an offense committed by another when...intending to promote or 

facilitate the commission of the offense, the person...aids, counsels, or agrees, or 

attempts to aid the other person in planning or committing it.”29

28 To its credit, the State did provide the Court with case law contrary to its 

position. 

29 11 Del. C. § 271(2)b.
12

23. Wilson argues that § 271, dealing with guilt determination, has no 

applicability here to what is solely a jurisdictional question. He is supported in that 

argument by at least two decisions of this Court – State v. Vasquez30 and State v. 

Dunn.

31 The discussion of the issue in the latter is more expansive than in the former.

24. It is an interesting question, and one perhaps deserving some 

clarification from the General Assembly. But, given the Court’s determination to 

deny transfer under § 1011(b), it is not one the Court need address here. 

THEREFORE, Defendant Mehki Wilson’s Motion Pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 

1011(b) to Transfer Charges to Family Court is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Ferris W. Wharton

Ferris W. Wharton, J.

30 2021 WL 4077812, at *3 (Del. Super. Ct. Sep. 1, 2021.)

31 Memorandum Opinion, I.D. No. 2008008210, at 10-15 (Del. Super. Ct. Apr. 15, 

2021).