The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and 56-year prison sentence of Walike C. Parham on multiple serious charges including three counts of attempted first-degree murder, in a decision issued Jan. 15, 2026.
The court rejected Parham's appeal after his attorney filed a no-merit brief seeking to withdraw from the case under Supreme Court Rule 26(c). The three-justice panel, led by Chief Justice Seitz and including Justices Legrow and Griffiths, unanimously upheld the lower court's ruling.
Parham was originally charged in May 2022 in a multiple-count indictment that included three counts of attempted first-degree murder, two counts of theft of a motor vehicle, and multiple firearm offenses. The charges stem from incidents that occurred in 2022, though specific details of the underlying crimes were not disclosed in the court's order.
Following an eight-day trial in Delaware Superior Court, a jury found Parham guilty on 13 separate charges. The convictions included three counts of attempted first-degree murder, two counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, two counts of theft of a motor vehicle, two counts of first-degree conspiracy, two counts of second-degree conspiracy, two counts of criminal mischief, and one count of resisting arrest.
After the jury verdict, the Superior Court conducted a separate proceeding and found Parham guilty of two additional counts of possession of a firearm by a person prohibited. This finding suggests Parham had prior criminal history that legally barred him from possessing firearms.
Following a presentence investigation, the Superior Court sentenced Parham to a total of 56 years of incarceration followed by probation. The lengthy sentence reflects the serious nature of the charges, particularly the three attempted murder convictions and multiple firearm offenses.
On appeal, Parham's court-appointed counsel filed what is known as a Rule 26(c) brief, also called a no-merit brief. Under this procedural rule, defense attorneys who cannot identify any arguably meritorious grounds for appeal may seek to withdraw from representing their client after filing a brief explaining why no valid appeal issues exist.
The process requires the attorney to conduct "a complete and careful examination of the record" to determine whether any appealable issues exist. Parham's counsel informed him of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided him with copies of both the motion to withdraw and the accompanying brief. The attorney also informed Parham of his right to supplement his attorney's presentation with additional arguments.
Notably, Parham chose not to raise any issues for the court's consideration, despite being given the opportunity to do so. This suggests either that Parham agreed with his attorney's assessment or chose not to pursue additional arguments.
The State of Delaware filed a response to the no-merit brief, though the content of that response was not detailed in the court's order. The Supreme Court reviewed the no-merit brief, the state's response, and the complete Superior Court record before reaching its decision.
The Delaware Supreme Court's order affirming the conviction was brief and procedural, focusing primarily on the Rule 26(c) process rather than substantive legal issues. This type of order is typical when appellate courts find no merit in an appeal and approve counsel's request to withdraw.
The case illustrates the serious consequences Delaware courts impose for violent crimes involving firearms. Parham's 56-year sentence, which includes time for attempted murder, conspiracy, and firearms violations, reflects the state's approach to prosecuting gun violence and repeat offenders.
The multiple conspiracy charges suggest the crimes involved planning or coordination with others, though the court's order does not provide details about any co-defendants or the specific circumstances of the alleged offenses.
Parham's case was assigned Criminal ID Numbers 2205008776A&B, indicating it was part of the Superior Court's 2022 criminal docket. The eight-day trial duration suggests the case involved substantial evidence and testimony, though specific trial details were not included in the Supreme Court's order.
With the Supreme Court's affirmation, Parham's conviction and sentence are now final unless he pursues federal habeas corpus relief, which requires showing constitutional violations in his state court proceedings. The 56-year sentence means Parham will likely spend the remainder of his adult life in prison, followed by a period of supervised probation.
The case represents another example of Delaware's criminal justice system handling serious violent crimes involving firearms, with the appellate process ensuring that convictions are properly reviewed even when defense counsel believes no meritorious appeal issues exist.