State of Delaware v. Imwold.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY STATE OF DELAWARE, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL IMWOLD, Defendant. Cr. ID. No. 1506001972 Submitted: November 18, 2015 Decided: December 17, 2015 Upon Appeal from Commissioner’s Findings and Fact Recommendations ADOPTED ORDER This 17th day of December, 2015, the Court has considered the Commissioner’s November 2, 2015 ruling. On October 26, 2015, Defendant Michael Imwold filed a Motion to Dismiss. The motion was referred to a Superior Court Commissioner in accordance with 10 Del. C. § 512(b) and Superior Court Criminal Rule 62 for proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Commissioner heard argument on the Motion to Dismiss on November 2, 2015. The Commissioner denied Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that any delay was not so great as to warrant dismissal. 1 “Within ten days after filing of a Commissioner’s proposed findings of fact and recommendations . . . any party may serve and file written objections.” 1 On November 12, 2015, Defendant filed a timely objection, asserting unreasonable delay prior to indictment, that allegedly caused serious prejudice to Defendant. The Court holds that the Commissioner’s November 2, 2015 ruling be adopted. The Commissioner’s findings are not clearly erroneous, are not contrary to law, and are not an abuse of discretion. 2 The Court finds that Defendant was not adversely affected, nor were his due process rights negatively impacted, by the State’s reasonable delay in indicting him. THEREFORE, after careful and de novo review of the record in this action, the Court hereby accepts the Commissioner’s November 2, 2015 ruling in its entirety. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is hereby DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 17th day of December, 2015 /s/ Mary M. Johnston__________ The Honorable Mary M. Johnston 1 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 62(a)(5)(ii). 2 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 62(a)(4)(iv). 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
