Case Title: Nichols v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 88, 2006

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2006-12-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ALEXIS NICHOLS, 
 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 88, 2006 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 9512007450 
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: October 11, 2006 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: December 11, 2006 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 11th day of December 2006, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief and the State’s motion to affirm, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The appellant, Alexis Nichols, filed this appeal from the 
Superior Court’s denial of his motion for correction of an illegal sentence.  
Nichols argued that his sentence for first degree assault is illegal because the 
underlying conviction was not supported by the evidence.  The State has 
filed a motion to affirm the judgment below on the ground that it is manifest 
 
2
on the face of Nichols’ opening brief that his appeal is without merit.  We 
agree and affirm.1 
 
(2) 
 It is well-established that the grounds for a motion seeking 
correction of an illegal sentence under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a) 
must be limited to alleged errors with the sentence itself, e.g., the sentence 
exceeds the statutory limits or the sentence violates double jeopardy.  A 
motion under Rule 35(a) is not an appropriate means to argue alleged errors 
in the underlying conviction.2  
 
(3) 
Accordingly, we find it manifest that the judgment of the 
Superior Court should be affirmed on the basis of the Superior Court=s well-
reasoned decision dated January 17, 2006.  The Superior Court did not err in 
concluding that Nichols’ sentence was not illegal and that the relief sought 
by Nichols’ could only be pursued through a motion for postconviction relief 
under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.  
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                                 
1 Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998). 
2 Id.