unconstitutional, the Supreme Court ruled the provision for "life imprisonment without benefit of parole" was severable and valid. Thereafter, the Court specifically considered whether defendants sentenced to life without benefit of parole under the remaining portion of the statute would be entitled to consideration for parole. At 367 A.2d 990, the Supreme Court ruled as follows:
We conclude, therefore, that the provisions of section 4371 et seq. are not applicable to § 4209(a); and that 'life imprisonment without benefit of parole' under § 4209(a) means confinement for the balance of the life of the person convicted of first degree murder.
In sum, the Delaware Supreme Court has ruled directly on the issue in question. The court's ruling in the Spence case, supra, makes it clear that Mr. Reynolds is not entitled to parole.
Very truly yours,
J. Brendan O'Neill
Deputy Attorney General
Michael J. Rich