Title: Twyman v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 747, 2010
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: July 25, 2011

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
KOREY E. TWYMAN,  
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 747, 2010 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below—Superior Court 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware in and  
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
for New Castle County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
Cr. ID No. 9707012195 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Submitted: April 22, 2011 
Decided: 
July 25, 2011 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices.        
O R D E R 
 
This 25th day of July 2011, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal, 
it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Korey E. Twyman, filed this appeal from the 
Superior Court’s November 18, 2010 denial of postconviction relief.  After 
careful consideration of the parties’ positions on appeal, we affirm the 
judgment of the Superior Court. 
(2) 
Following a Superior Court jury trial in 1999, Twyman was 
convicted of Murder in the First Degree, Attempted Murder in the First 
Degree, Conspiracy in the First Degree, Murder in the Second Degree and 
2 
 
related firearm offenses.  The record reflects that Twyman was only fifteen-
years-old when he committed the crimes. 
(3) 
On July 9, 1999, Twyman was sentenced to two mandatory life 
sentences for Murder in the First Degree and Attempted Murder in the First 
Degree.  Twyman was also sentenced to five years at Level V for 
Conspiracy in the First Degree, to twenty years at Level V for Murder in the 
Second Degree and to terms of years for the firearm offenses.  On direct 
appeal, this Court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court.1 
(4) 
In his motion for postconviction relief filed on September 28, 
2010, Twyman challenged the mandatory life sentence that was imposed for 
his Attempted Murder in the First Degree conviction.  Twyman argued that 
the mandatory life sentence for attempted murder violates his constitutional 
rights under the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Graham v. 
Florida.2 
(5) 
By report dated October 19, 2010, a Superior Court 
Commissioner recommended that Twyman’s postconviction motion should 
be denied as procedurally barred.3   Thereafter, upon de novo review of the 
matter, the Superior Court, by order dated November 18, 2010, adopted the 
                                          
 
1 Twyman v. State, 2001 WL 474632 (Del. Supr.). 
2 Graham v. Florida, 130 S.Ct. 2011 (2010). 
3 See Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (listing procedural bars to relief).  State v. Twyman, 
2010 WL 4261921 (Del. Super.). 
3 
 
Commissioner’s report and denied Twyman’s postconviction motion for the 
reasons stated by the Commissioner.  This appeal followed. 
(6) 
On appeal, Twyman argues that, notwithstanding the procedural 
bar, his claim under Graham warrants review because it asserts “a 
miscarriage of justice”4 and/or a newly recognized “retroactively applicable 
right.”5  Nonetheless, having carefully considered the parties’ positions on 
appeal, the Court agrees with the Superior Court that Twyman’s reliance on 
Graham is misplaced and provides no basis for relief in this case.   
(7) 
First, the Court agrees that, under Graham, Attempted Murder 
in the First Degree appears to fall within the category of crimes for which a 
life sentence without parole may be imposed upon a juvenile.6  Second, in 
Graham, the United States Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment 
prohibits imposing a life sentence without parole on a juvenile who is 
sentenced “solely for a nonhomicide offense,” which is not the case here. 7  
In this case, Twyman was sentenced for homicide and nonhomicide 
                                          
 
4 See Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(5) (providing exception to procedural bar). 
5 See Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(1) (providing exception to procedural bar). 
6 See Graham v. Florida, 130 S.Ct. at 2027 (recognizing that “defendants who do not kill, 
intend to kill, or foresee that life will be taken are categorically less deserving of the most 
serious forms of punishment than are murderers”) (emphasis added). 
7 In Graham, the sixteen-year-old defendant was convicted of armed burglary with 
assault or battery, a felony that carried a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, and 
attempted armed robbery.  The trial court imposed the maximum sentence for both 
crimes. Because Florida does not have a parole system, the defendant’s life sentence was 
without the possibility of parole.  Graham v. Florida, 130 S.Ct. at 2019-20. 
4 
 
offenses, namely for his convictions on Murder in the First Degree, 
Attempted Murder in the First Degree, Conspiracy in the First Degree, 
Murder in the Second Degree and firearm offenses. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice