Case Title: Richmond v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 70, 2022

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2022-06-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
RYAN RICHMOND, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 70, 2022 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§ 
§  Cr. ID No. 1208023790 (N) 
§  
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: April 18, 2022 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
June 22, 2022 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, 
Justices. 
 
 
ORDER 
 
Upon consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the appellee’s motion to 
affirm, and the record on appeal, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Ryan Richmond, filed this appeal from a Superior Court 
order denying his motion for correction of illegal sentence under Superior Court 
Criminal Rule 35(a).  The State of Delaware has filed a motion to affirm the 
judgment below on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Richmond’s opening 
brief that his appeal is without merit.  We agree and affirm. 
(2) 
The record reflects that, on May 15, 2014, Richmond pleaded guilty to 
manslaughter as a lesser included offender of second-degree murder, first-degree 
2 
 
assault as a lesser-included offense of attempted first-degree murder, and possession 
of a firearm during the commission of a felony (“PFDCF”).  As part of the plea 
agreement, the State agreed not to recommend more than fifteen years of Level V 
incarceration.  Richmond was free to argue for a lesser sentence.  The Superior Court 
immediately sentenced Richmond to three years of Level V incarceration for 
PFDCF.  On October 10, 2014, the Superior Court sentenced Richmond for the other 
convictions as follows: (i) for manslaughter, twenty-five years of Level V 
incarceration, suspended after six years for one year of Level III probation; and (ii) 
for first-degree assault, twenty-five years of Level V incarceration, suspended after 
six years for one year of Level III probation.   
(3) 
Richmond did not appeal but did file motions for sentence reduction in 
November 2014 and May 2015.  The Superior Court denied the motions.  On June 
29, 2015, Richmond filed a petition for relief from judgment, arguing that it was 
unfair that his sentence was similar to the sentences of his co-defendants, who were 
not first-time offenders like him.  The Superior Court treated the motion as a motion 
for sentence modification under Rule 35(b) and denied it.  On appeal, this Court 
affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment.1   
(4) 
On May 11, 2016, Richmond filed another motion for sentence 
reduction under Rule 35(b).  Richmond argued that the Department of Correction 
 
1 Richmond v. State, 2016 WL 521686 (Del. Feb. 9, 2016). 
3 
 
was not providing him adequate treatment for his sickle cell anemia.  The Superior 
Court denied the motion.  On appeal, this Court affirmed the Superior Court’s 
judgment.2   
(5) 
On October 13, 2021, Richmond filed a motion for correction of illegal 
sentence under Rule 35(a).  The Superior Court treated the motion as a motion for 
sentence reduction under Rule 35(b) and denied it as repetitive and untimely.  
Richmond filed a motion for reargument, which the Superior Court also denied.  This 
appeal followed.   
(6) 
We review the denial of a motion for sentence correction for abuse of 
discretion, although questions of law are reviewed de novo.3  A motion for sentence 
correction under Rule 35(a) is very narrow in scope.4  A sentence is illegal if it 
exceeds statutory limits, violates double jeopardy, is ambiguous with respect to the 
time and manner in which it is to be served, is internally contradictory, omits a term 
required to be imposed by statute, is uncertain as to its substance, or is a sentence 
that the judgment of conviction did not authorize.5  Although a motion to correct an 
illegal sentence may be filed at any time, a motion to correct a sentence imposed in 
an illegal manner filed more than ninety days after imposition of sentence will be 
 
2 Richmond v. State, 2016 WL 6092472 (Del. Oct. 18, 2016). 
3 Fountain v. State, 2014 WL 4102069 (Del. Aug. 19, 2014). 
4 Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998). 
5 Id. 
4 
 
considered only in extraordinary circumstances or if the Department of Correction 
files an application under Section 4217.6 
(7) 
As he did below, Richmond relies on this Court’s decision in Gibson v. 
State7 to argue that his sentence is illegal because the sentencing judge failed to 
comply with 11 Del. C. § 4204(n).  Section 4204(n) requires a judge to set forth on 
the record the reasons for deviating from the presumptive sentence set forth in the 
Sentencing Accounting Commission (“SENTAC”) guidelines.  In Gibson, the 
defendant appealed his sentence based on the judge’s failure to comply with Section 
4204(n) at a resentencing hearing.8  This Court concluded that the defendant’s 
criminal history meant his sentence fell within the SENTAC guidelines, but 
emphasized that sentencing judges should comply with Section 4204(n).9   
(8) 
Unlike Gibson, this appeal arises from the denial of a motion for 
correction of illegal sentence filed years after the imposition of sentence.  As the 
State argues in its motion to affirm, the Court has previously construed a motion for 
sentence correction based on the sentencing judge’s failure to explain their reasons 
for departing from the SENTAC Guidelines as a claim that the sentence was imposed 
 
6 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(a), (b). 
7 2020 WL 7213227 (Del. Dec. 3, 2020). 
8 Id. at *1.   
9 Id. at *3. 
5 
 
in an illegal manner that must be raised within ninety days of sentencing.10  Absent 
extraordinary circumstances, which Richmond has not identified, his motion was 
untimely.  As this Court has also held, a sentence is not illegal simply because it 
exceeds the SENTAC guidelines.11  We therefore affirm the Superior Court’s denial 
of Richmond motion for correction of illegal sentence, albeit on grounds different 
than those relied upon by the Superior Court.12 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is 
GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
        Chief Justice 
 
10 See, e.g., Walters v. State, 2013 WL 4540040, at *1 (Del. Aug. 23, 2013) (construing motion 
for sentence correction based on the sentencing judge’s failure to give his reasons for departing 
from the SENTAC guidelines on the record as a claim that sentence was imposed in an illegal 
manner).   
11 See, e.g., Ramos v. State, 2022 WL 457374, at *2 (Del. Feb. 14, 2022) (affirming the Superior 
Court’s denial of motion for sentence correction and noting that “a sentence is not illegal simply 
because it exceeds the SENTAC guidelines”); Jenkins v. State, 2019 WL 4923266, at *1 (Del. Oct. 
4, 2019) (affirming the Superior Court denial of a motion for sentence correction and noting that 
“[a] judge’s departure from the SENTAC guidelines does not make a sentence illegal”). 
12 Unitrin, Inc. v. Am. Gen. Corp., 651 A.2d 1361, 1390 (Del. 1995) (noting that the Delaware 
Supreme Court may affirm a trial court’s judgment for reasons different than those articulated by 
the trial court).