PANUSKI v. State
Supreme Court of Delaware
1Opinion of the Court
HOLLAND, Justice:
The defendant-appellant, William Pa-nuski (“Panuski”), proceeding pro se, appeals from a Superior Court order denying his motion for postconviction relief. Pa-nuski moved for postconviction relief on five grounds: first, violation of due process due to insufficient evidence; second, violation of double jeopardy; third, ineffective assistance of counsel; fourth, abuse of prosecutorial discretion; and fifth, “contra-dictive and ambiguous” colloquy at his sentencing hearing.
In an earlier decision, the Superior Court denied Panuski’s motion as to the first two grounds as…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Wayte v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Menna v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Albury v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 1988
- Flamer v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 1990
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Burrell v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 2019
- State v. PhlipotSuperior Court of Delaware · 2012
- Garvin v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 2015
- Hardman v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 2024
- Matthews v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 2024
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.