Background
Lenell T. Abbott was prohibited from possessing deadly weapons or firearm ammunition because of prior controlled-substance convictions. In 2023, police went to his Dover residence, where Abbott disclosed a firearm hidden in an air-conditioning vent. Police found that firearm and ammunition, and Abbott later disclosed a second firearm hidden in a different vent, along with corresponding ammunition.
Following a bench trial, the Superior Court convicted Abbott of two counts of possession of a firearm by a person prohibited and one count of possession of ammunition by a person prohibited. The court imposed separate sentences for all three convictions. Abbott argued for the first time on appeal that the convictions were multiplicitous under the Double Jeopardy Clause and should have merged into one count for sentencing.
The Court’s Holding
The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed. It held that 11 Del. C. § 1448 establishes each deadly weapon as a separate unit of prosecution because the statute prohibits a person prohibited from possessing “a deadly weapon.” The article “a” unambiguously means one deadly weapon, permitting a separate conviction and sentence for each firearm possessed.
The court concluded that its precedent supported this interpretation, particularly Buchanan v. State, which treated each handgun and ammunition as a distinct offense. Because the statutory text was unambiguous, the court declined to rely on legislative history suggesting that Section 1448 was intended to track federal law, which uses “any firearm or ammunition.” It also held that Delaware’s general provision allowing singular and plural terms to be construed interchangeably did not apply because the phrase “a deadly weapon” limits the statute to the singular.
Accordingly, the State properly charged Abbott with one count for each of the two firearms and another count for the ammunition, and the Superior Court could sentence him separately on each count. The court declined to revisit its precedent holding that firearm and ammunition convictions do not merge, and it treated arguments first raised in Abbott’s reply brief as waived.
Key Takeaways
- Under 11 Del. C. § 1448, each firearm possessed by a person prohibited supports a separate charge, conviction, and sentence.
- The statute’s reference to “a deadly weapon” unambiguously establishes one weapon as the unit of prosecution.
- A separate ammunition conviction need not merge with firearm convictions, and arguments omitted from the opening appellate brief are waived.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that simultaneous possession of multiple firearms can expose a person prohibited to multiple convictions and sentences in Delaware. It also reinforces the court’s text-focused approach to determining the unit of prosecution: when statutory language is unambiguous, legislative history cannot be used to create ambiguity.
For defense counsel, the ruling makes multiplicity challenges to separate Section 1448 firearm counts unlikely to succeed when each count corresponds to a distinct weapon. Any argument for changing that result must be directed to the General Assembly rather than the courts.