rejecting the defendant's argument that the Board of Parole lacked authority to impose parole conditions that included Level III probation/parole supervision, maintaining full-time employment, and abiding by a curfew
Summary of this case from Getz v. StateNo. 633, 2006.
March 8, 2007.
Appeal from the Superior CA 06M-11-064, 06M-11-005.
Decisions Without Published Opinions AFFIRMED.
rejecting the defendant's argument that the Board of Parole lacked authority to impose parole conditions that included Level III probation/parole supervision, maintaining full-time employment, and abiding by a curfew
Summary of this case from Getz v. StateFull title:Haskins v. Williams
Court:Supreme Court of Delaware
Date published: Mar 8, 2007
Accordingly, we conclude that the petition must be dismissed. Haskins v. Williams, 2007 WL 704122, *2 (Del.…
Haskins v. DelawareIn December 1989, Petitioner Carl J. Haskins Jr. ("Petitioner") pled guilty to one count of rape in the…