Sen. Dave Lawson

This Act eliminates authorization for a warrantless arrest by a private person in the case of an individual accused in the courts of another state of a felony. It also strikes a provision relating to the authority of an officer to command assistance in making arrests based on charges in another state. This bill is a successor to House Bill No. 76.

Currently, the Department of Correction (“Department”) biennially reviews individuals sentenced to more than 1 year of incarceration to determine if there is good cause to recommend a sentence modification to the Board of Parole for an individual who is not a substantial risk to the community or the individual’s self. Good cause includes the individual’s rehabilitation, serious medical illness or infirmity, and prison overcrowding. While any individual is eligible for consideration due to a serious medical illness or infirmity, only those who have served at least ½ of their sentence for a violent felony or all of the statutorily mandated term of incarceration are eligible for consideration for rehabilitation, prison overcrowding, or another reason. If the Department recommends an individual for sentence modification, the Board of Parole considers the application and, if the Board approves, the sentencing court then makes a final determination on the sentence modification. This Act, which is named in honor of Richard “Mouse” Smith, a Delaware civil rights leader, who spent decades advocating on issues addressed by this Act, is a substitute for Senate Bill No. 10. Like Senate Bill No. 10, this Act revises the process for sentence modification in 3 ways. First, this Act removes the Board of Parole from the sentence modification process and provides that applications for sentence modification are made directly to the sentencing court. Second, this Act provides that an individual who is sentenced to incarceration for more than 1 year may seek a sentence modification in 3 circumstances: (1) The application for a sentence modification is based solely on the person’s serious medical illness or infirmity. (2) The person is 60 years of age or older, has served at least 15 years of the originally imposed Level V sentence, and the application for sentence modification is based solely on the person’s rehabilitation. (3) The person has served at least 25 years of the originally imposed Level V sentence and the application for sentence modification is based solely on the person’s rehabilitation. Third, this Act provides that an individual who is sentenced to incarceration for more than 1 year and whose sentence is reviewed by the Department, but who the Department does not recommend for sentence modification, may directly apply to the court for a sentence modification. Like Senate Bill No. 10, this Act also makes clear that the Department and sentencing court must consider if a sentence modification resulting in the release of an individual who is incarcerated would constitute a substantial risk to a victim of, or witness to, an offense that is the subject of the sentence modification and that the sentencing court must provide an opportunity for the victim and the Department of Justice to be heard. This Act differs from Senate Bill No. 10 as follows: (1) Providing that a person is not eligible for a sentence modification under this Act if the person is serving a statutorily mandated term of incarceration at Level V for a conviction of any offense under this title and has not yet served all of the statutorily mandated portion of the Level V sentence. Senate Bill No. 10 provided the person was not eligible until the person had served ½ of the statutorily mandated portion of the Level V sentence. (2) Making clear that the person’s attorney may file the sentence modification for the person. (3) Making clear that an application for a sentence modification may be filed by those who have served the period of incarceration provided under paragraph (a)(5) and have good cause. (4) Requiring the Department, on completion of the Department’s eligibility review under paragraph (d)(1), to provide the person with information regarding the person’s right to counsel. (5) Providing that the person may retain a private attorney at the person's own expense or request the court refer the person to the Office of Defense Services, and that the person may proceed without an attorney only as provided under court rules. (6) Requiring the Department to biennially conduct the eligibility review required under paragraph (d)(1). Senate Bill No. 10 would have required the Department to make these determinations annually. (7) Requiring the Department to provide to the court, with an application for sentence modification the Department files, a written statement of the satisfied requirements under this Act that form the Department’s basis for recommending the sentence modification. (8) Requiring the Department to provide to the person, the person’s attorney of record, or the Office of Defense Services a written statement of the Department’s reasons for not recommending a sentence modification, including the unsatisfied requirements of this Act that form the Department’s basis for not recommending the sentence modification. (9) Authorizing the court to summarily dismiss an application that does not include the statements from the Department required by this Act, except for an application based solely on the person’s serious medical illness or infirmity. (10) Authorizing the court to summarily dismiss an application if the court determines summary dismissal is warranted. (11) Giving the court discretion to determine how long a person whose application for sentence modification is denied because the court determines the person constitutes a substantial risk to the community or the person’s application lacks good cause. This Act provides the period set by the court may not exceed 3 years. (12) Making clear that if the court denies an application for sentence modification based on a person’s serious medical illness or infirmity, the person may submit a subsequent application if at least 60 days have passed since the date of the court’s denial and if the application demonstrates a material change in the person’s circumstances.

This resolution establishes the Delaware Nuclear Energy Feasibility Task Force to examine the feasibility, economic impact, regulatory considerations, energy reliability, and environmental implications of deploying Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) in Delaware.

Maddy summaryHJR 6 is a procedural resolution that establishes the official revenue, refund, and unencumbered funds estimates for the state's General Fund during Fiscal Year 2026. It directly affects state budget planners and financial offices by providing the legally recognized financial projections used to guide budget decisions. The resolution does not change laws or impact citizens directly; it simply formalizes the projected income and available funds for the upcoming fiscal year. This type of resolution is standard practice for setting budget baselines and requires no public action or policy change.

Maddy summaryHJR 5 is a procedural resolution that establishes the official revenue, refund, and unencumbered funds estimates for the state's General Fund during Fiscal Year 2025. It sets the baseline financial projections used by the legislature to plan the state budget, directly affecting budget drafting and fiscal planning processes. This resolution does not change laws or spending but provides the foundational financial numbers for the upcoming fiscal year. It is a standard step in the annual budget cycle, not a policy change.

This Act is the second leg of a constitutional amendment to modernize the bail provisions within the Delaware Constitution and clarify the power of the General Assembly to enumerate certain felony offenses for which, or circumstances under which, pretrial release on bail may not be allowed. The first leg of this constitutional amendment was Senate Substitute No. 1 for Senate Bill No. 11 of the 152nd General Assembly, published in Chapter 283 of Volume 84 of the Laws of Delaware. On passage of this second leg by this General Assembly this amendment will become part of the Delaware Constitution. The current constitutional provision providing that only “capital offenses” are potentially not bailable first appeared in its present form in the Delaware Constitution of 1792. At that time, “capital offenses” included many more offenses than the term does today. For example, manslaughter, rape, robbery, burglary, and assaults with weapons were capital offenses, and therefore included as crimes for which a court could order pretrial detention. Thus, over time, certain crimes that the Framers included as potentially not bailable are currently bailable. Presently, a Delaware state court judge cannot order preventive detention in any non-capital case. Instead, the judge can only attempt to set the bail so high that a defendant cannot make it, which means that any defendant, no matter how dangerous and no matter the circumstance, can obtain release if the defendant can fund the bail—even if that defendant poses a certain flight risk or a known threat of harm to the public or to a specific person, such as a witness or victim. This Act is one step toward completing a pretrial release-detention continuum requiring specific evidence-based detention decisions that seek to maximize public safety while minimizing pretrial detention for those for whom detention is not required. Specifically, this Act will do all of the following: (1) Retain the express declaration of a general right to have bail set in a criminal case. (2) Provide that the crimes for which bail may be withheld are capital murder, where the evidentiary proof is positive or presumption of the accusation great, and other specifically identified felony offenses determined by and under procedures prescribed by law where the evidentiary proof is positive or presumption of the accusation great. (3) Ensure that an additional condition precedent to bail being withheld in non-capital cases is a finding by clear and convincing evidence that no condition or combination of conditions of release will reasonably assure the person’s appearance at court proceedings, reasonably assure the protection of the community, victims, witnesses, or any other person, and reasonably maintain the integrity of the judicial process, such that the defendant will not obstruct or attempt to obstruct justice. With the adoption of this Act, Delaware can progress toward the type of modern bail system that has been increasingly adopted by our sister states through amendment of their state constitutions, when needed, and the development of statutory procedures that provide, in appropriate cases, pre-trial detention without bail. And this Act does so by adopting the standards recommended by authoritative sources including the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Uniform Law Commission, the National Center for State Courts, the American Bar Association, and the numerous state legislatures and court systems that have studied pretrial detention and retained or incorporated them in their own state constitutions and laws. This Act, by itself, would not allow that a person charged with a non-capital crime could be held without bail. Rather, no person could be subject to a preventive detention hearing in a non-capital case until the General Assembly revises Chapter 21 of Title 11 of the Delaware Code to prescribe by law the specific felony offenses, circumstances, and procedures under which detention without bail may occur. The General Assembly has made the necessary revisions to Chapter 21 of Title 11 through the adoption of Senate Bill No. 12 of the 152nd General Assembly, published as Chapter 473 of Volume 84 of the Laws of Delaware, which was enacted on September 30, 2024, and will take effect 6 months after the enactment of this Act. This Act requires a greater than majority vote for passage because § 1 of Article XVI of the Delaware Constitution requires the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members elected to each house of the General Assembly when the General Assembly amends the Delaware Constitution.

Maddy summaryHB 225 is the state's budget bill for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2026. It allocates state funds to government agencies and programs, while establishing specific rules and limits on how those funds can be spent. The bill also updates certain state laws to support the budget's implementation. This legislation directly affects how state agencies manage taxpayer-funded operations during the 2025-2026 fiscal year.

Maddy summaryHB 226 provides a one-time funding of $37,632,955 to the Office of Management and Budget for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2026. This supplemental appropriation covers specific, one-time budgeted expenses that were not included in the original budget allocation. The funds are intended to address immediate financial needs within the state's budget process for that fiscal year.

This Act provides supplementary appropriations to certain Grants-in-Aid recipients for Fiscal Year 2026. Section 1 – Government Units and Senior Centers $ 37,093,119 Section 2 – One-Times and Community Agencies $ 47,093,493 Section 3 – Fire Companies and Public Service Ambulance Companies $ 13,258,013 Section 4 – Veterans Organizations $ 839,000 GRAND TOTAL $ 98,283,625

This Act updates the membership and functions of the Interagency Resource Management Committee by adding the Lieutenant Governor as Chairperson, the Chair of the Early Childhood Council (ECC) as a voting member, and members of the General Assembly as nonvoting members. Additionally, this Act clarifies staffing of the IRMC through the Early Childhood Support team in the Department of Education and the Office of the Lieutenant Governor.