On March 1,1977, the defendant, Jack W. Fletcher, pled guilty to Robbery First Degree and Possession of a Deadly Weapon During the Commission of a Felony. The State introduced evidence that the defendant had two prior felony convictions in other jurisdictions and moved to have him sentenced as an habitual criminal under 11 Del.C. § 4214(b).1
*1255The defendant appeals his sentencing as an habitual criminal arguing, inter alia, that the State, to use a conviction from another jurisdiction for sentencing under § 4214(b), must prove that the offense would have been a felony under Delaware law, and that, at the time of one of the prior convictions relied on to sentence the defendant under § 4214(b), the defendant was a minor and would have been tried in the Family Court as a juvenile, unless found non-amenable to the process of that court. See, 10 Del.C. § 921. Because of our resolution of this issue, we find it unnecessary to reach the other issues raised by the defendant. For the reasons stated below, we reverse and remand.
The defendant argues that he can be sentenced under 11 Del.C. § 4214, using felony convictions in courts other than those of the State of Delaware, only if the State proves that the defendant was convicted of criminal acts which would support a conviction for one of the felonies enumerated in § 4214. Strictly construing this statute, as we must, we agree. Kane v. State, Del.Supr., 327 A.2d 744 (1974).
This approach is consistent with the statute’s purpose of punishing habitual offenders for crimes involving harm or danger to human life and for which a life sentence without parole is appropriate.
The best and most just method of determining those deserving of such punishment is to look at the prior conduct of the defendant as it relates to the felonies in the Delaware Criminal Code, rather than to rely on technical classifications of other jurisdictions over which our legislature has no control. See Commonwealth ex rel. Cannon v. Maroney, Pa.Supr., 419 Pa. 461, 214 A.2d 498 (1965); Bloom v. Lundburg, Conn.Supr., 149 Conn. 67, 175 A.2d 568 (1961), cert. denied 369 U.S. 819, 82 S.Ct. 831, 7 L.Ed.2d 785 (1962).
II
In this case the defendant contends that when convicted of one felony committed outside Delaware he was a minor under Delaware Law and subject to the jurisdiction of the Family Court. Thus, his conviction, if in Delaware, would not have been designated as a felony but as a delinquency under § 921.2
*1256We agree with the defendant that, with some exceptions, 10 Del.C. § 921 and § 931 evidence an intent on the part of the legislature to treat juvenile offenders in a different manner than adult offenders. We conclude that it would be inconsistent with that purpose to allow the use of convictions from other jurisdictions that would have been juvenile offenses in Delaware, and thus not felonies, to support enhanced punishment as an habitual offender under 11 Del.C. § 4214. Cf. Sandoval v. People, Colo. Supr., 162 Colo. 416, 426 P.2d 968 (1967) with State ex rel. White v. Tahash, Minn. Supr., 271 Minn. 283, 136 N.W.2d 89 (1965), and State v. McCall, N.J.Supr., 14 N.J. 538, 103 A.2d 376 (1954).
Ill
The defendant in this case has a record of delinquency in Delaware. His acts in Kansas, when he was 17, might have been criminal acts the same as or equivalent to one of the felonies which would have subjected him to prosecution as an adult. He might have been found not amenable to the Family Court process. In addition, this conduct might have been such that he could have been convicted of one of the felonies enumerated in 11 Del.C. § 4214.
However, the States did not introduce any evidence to support the likelihood of these mere possibilities, and we will not assume them to be true. Without such evidence, we must conclude that the State has not met its burden of proof. Consequently, we hold that the sentencing of the defendant under 11 DehC. § 4214(b) was improper and must be reversed. We remand this case to the Superior Court for resentencing consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.