Case Title: Deputy v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 382, 2012

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2012-11-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
KENNETH T. DEPUTY, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 382, 2012 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for Kent County 
§ 
§  Cr. ID No. 9612008864 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
Submitted: September 27, 2012 
 
Decided: 
November 16, 2012 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 16th day of November 2012, upon consideration of the 
appellant’s opening brief and the appellee’s motion to affirm pursuant to 
Supreme Court Rule 25(a), it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) The defendant-appellant, Kenneth T. Deputy, appeals from a 
Superior Court June 29, 2012 order denying his third Superior Court 
Criminal Rule 35(a) motion for a correction of an illegal sentence.  The 
plaintiff-appellee, the State of Delaware, moves to affirm the Superior Court 
 
2
order on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Deputy’s opening brief 
that this appeal is without merit.1  We agree and affirm. 
 
(2) In September 1997, Deputy was found guilty by a Superior Court 
jury of Attempted Robbery in the First Degree, Assault in the First Degree 
and Possession of a Deadly Weapon During the Commission of a Felony.  
He was sentenced to 27 years of Level V incarceration, to be suspended after 
22 years for decreasing levels of supervision.  This Court affirmed Deputy’s 
convictions on direct appeal.2  Since that time, Deputy has sought 
postconviction relief on numerous occasions.  This Court affirmed the two 
previous Superior Court orders denying his earlier Rule 35(a) motions.3 
 
(3) On appeal, Deputy claims that the Superior Court abused its 
discretion by denying his motion as untimely and repetitive, because his 
sentence is illegal due to his counsel’s ineffective assistance during the 
sentencing phase of his trial.  The “narrow function of Rule 35 is to permit 
correction of an illegal sentence, not to re-examine errors occurring at the 
trial or other proceedings prior to the imposition of sentence.”4 
                                                 
1 Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
2 Deputy v. State, 718 A.2d 527, 1998 WL 700168 (Del. Aug. 10, 1998) (TABLE). 
3 Deputy v. State, 889 A.2d 283, 2005 WL 3358527 (Del. Dec. 8, 2005) (TABLE); 
Deputy v. State, 872 A.2d 959, 2005 WL 1076511 (Del. May 6, 2005) (TABLE). 
4 Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998). 
 
3
 
(4) A sentence is illegal when it exceeds the statutorily-imposed 
limits, violates double jeopardy, is ambiguous or contradictory, omits a term 
required to be imposed by statute, is uncertain as to the substance of the 
sentence, or is a sentence that the judgment of conviction did not authorize.5  
Deputy does not claim that his sentence is deficient in any of the above 
respects.  Rather, he claims that the ineffective assistance of his counsel 
during his sentencing proceedings rendered his sentence illegal under Rule 
35(a).  He argues that because Rule 35(a) permits correction of an illegal 
sentence “at any time,” the Superior Court abused its discretion in denying 
his motion on the basis of untimeliness and repetitiveness. 
 
(5) Deputy’s argument that a claim of ineffective assistance of 
counsel can properly support a claim of an illegal sentence is wrong.  Such a 
claim is cognizable only as a timely-filed, Rule 61 postconviction motion.6  
In the absence of any factual or legal support, Deputy’s illegal sentence 
claim is without merit, because the issues presented on appeal are controlled 
by settled Delaware law and, to the extent that judicial discretion is 
implicated, there was no abuse of discretion. 
                                                 
5 Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted). 
6 Tatem v. State, 787 A.2d 80, 81-82 (Del. 2001).  Deputy previously filed in the Superior 
Court two Rule 61 postconviction motions, both of which this Court later affirmed.  
Deputy v. State, 822 A.2d 396, 2003 WL 1890011 (Del. Apr. 17, 2003) (TABLE); 
Deputy v. State, 748 A.2d 913, 2000 WL 313437 (Del. Mar. 9, 2000) (TABLE).  
 
4
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to 
affirm is GRANTED.  The order of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
       Justice