Cabrera v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
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. ORDER 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 2 145 A.3d 430 (Del. 2016). 153 A.3d 69 (Del. 2016) (PER CURIAM). 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 4 5 6 179 A.3d at 857. Id. at 857, 864. Id. at 860. Id. at 860-63. 2 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT: /s/ James T. Vaughn, Jr. Justice 3
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.
