Title: Cabrera v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 82, 2018
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: October 4, 2018

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
LUIS G. CABRERA, JR., 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below,  
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
No.  82, 2018 
 
Court Below:  Superior Court  
of the State of Delaware 
 
ID. No. 9904019326   
 
 
Submitted:  September 26, 2018 
  Decided:  October 4, 2018 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices.  
 
O R D E R 
On this 4th day of October 2018, upon consideration of the parties’ briefs and 
the record on appeal, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
Appellant, Luis G. Cabrera, Jr., appeals from a Superior Court order 
denying Cabrera’s Motion to Impose a Sentence Pursuant to the Class A Felony 
Statute.  Cabrera makes two claims on appeal.  First, he contends that this Court’s 
decisions in Rauf v. State1 and Powell v. State2 invalidated the entirety of 11 Del. 
C. § 4209 (the first-degree murder sentencing statute), including the portion that 
                                                 
1 145 A.3d 430 (Del. 2016). 
2 153 A.3d 69 (Del. 2016) (PER CURIAM). 
2 
 
imposes a mandatory sentence of life without parole for first-degree murder, thus 
requiring him to be sentenced under 11 Del. C. § 4205, the class A felony statute.  
Second, he contends that sentencing him to life without parole violates his 
constitutional rights, including his Eighth Amendment and due process rights. 
(2) 
Cabrera’s claims are identical to those raised by the appellant in 
Zebroski v. State.3  In Zebroski, this Court affirmed the Superior Court’s denial of 
Zebroski’s claims that (1) Rauf invalidated not just Delaware’s capital sentencing 
scheme, but all of 11 Del. C. § 4209 and (2) imposing a mandatory sentence of life 
without parole violates his Eighth Amendment and due process rights.4  This Court 
held that a “defendant whose sentence is vacated under Rauf and Powell must be 
resentenced to the punishment the General Assembly has specified as the alternative 
to death: life without parole.”5  This Court further held that the imposition of a 
mandatory life sentence without parole does not violate the Eighth Amendment or 
due process rights.6   
(3) 
Because Zebroski addressed and denied each of the claims Cabrera now 
raises, the Superior Court did not err in denying Cabrera’s Motion. 
                                                 
3 179 A.3d at 857. 
4 Id. at 857, 864. 
5 Id. at 860. 
6 Id. at 860-63. 
3 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
/s/  James T. Vaughn, Jr. 
Justice