Case Title: Desmond v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 240, 2005

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2006-03-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
CHRISTOPHER DESMOND, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 240, 2005 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 91009844DI 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: January 27, 2006 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
March 27, 2006 
 
Before HOLLAND, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 27th day of March 2006, upon consideration of the parties’ briefs and 
the record below, it appear to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The appellant, Christopher Desmond, filed this appeal from the 
Superior Court’s denial of his motion for correction of an illegal sentence 
pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a).  We find no merit to the issue 
raised in Desmond’s appeal.  Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the 
Superior Court. 
 
(2) 
The record reflects that Desmond was convicted in 1992 of ten 
counts of first degree robbery, ten counts of possession of a deadly weapon 
during the commission of a felony, and related offenses.  Among other things, 
 
2
the Superior Court sentenced Desmond to five years at Level V incarceration for 
each of the ten robbery convictions.  In his motion for correction of sentence, 
Desmond argued that the robbery sentences are illegal because the Superior 
Court improperly enhanced each sentence based on Desmond’s allegedly 
perjurious testimony.  The Superior Court denied Desmond’s motion on the 
ground that his robbery sentences fell within the then-existing statutory range of 
sentences for class B felonies1 and, further, that ample evidence existed in the 
record for the trial court to conclude that Desmond had perjured himself at trial.2 
 
(3) 
 The Court has carefully considered the parties’ respective positions 
on appeal.  We find it manifest that the judgment of the Superior Court should 
be affirmed on the basis of, and for the reasons set forth in, the Superior Court’s 
well-reasoned order dated May 13, 2005. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
1 See 11 Del. C. § 832(a) (Interim Supp. 1989) (defining first degree robbery as a class 
B felony); 11 Del. C. § 4205(b)(2) (Interim Supp. 1989) (providing for a 2 to 20 year 
sentencing range for class B felonies). 
2 Compare Fuller v. State, 860 A.2d 324 (Del. 2004) (vacating enhanced sentences 
due to lack of sufficient competent evidence in the record that defendant had suborned a 
witness’ allegedly perjurious testimony).