Xenidis v. State

Summary

The Court affirmed the Superior Court’s use of Xenidis’s 1991 Maryland DUI conviction to enhance his sentences for later Delaware DUI offenses. Applying the presumption of regularity, the Court held that Xenidis bore the burden of proving an irregularity or constitutional defect, and that his unsworn assertions and reliance on an incomplete record were insufficient. Because he failed to overcome that presumption, the Court did not reach his broader statutory and constitutional claims.