Legal Opinion

PANUSKI v. State

Supreme Court of Delaware

Decided March 30, 2012No. 331, 2011PublishedCited by 11 opinions

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

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Wayte v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  3. Menna v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  4. Albury v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 1988
  5. Flamer v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 1990

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Burrell v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 2019
  2. State v. PhlipotSuperior Court of Delaware · 2012
  3. Garvin v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 2015
  4. Hardman v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 2024
  5. Matthews v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 2024

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API