Case Title: Wallace v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 361, 2006

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2007-05-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
BRANDEN WALLACE, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 361, 2006 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0105007816 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: March 14, 2007 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: May 7, 2007 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 7th day of May 2007, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal, 
the record below, the Superior Court’s supplemental orders on remand, and 
the supplemental submissions of the parties, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Branden Wallace, appeals from the 
Superior Court’s June 22, 2006 and January 11, 2007 orders denying his 
motion for correction of an illegal sentence pursuant to Superior Court 
Criminal Rule 35(a).  We find no merit to the appeal.  Accordingly, we 
AFFIRM.   
 
(2) 
In September 2001, Wallace pled guilty to Possession with 
Intent to Deliver Heroin, Assault on a State Officer, and a number of other 
 
2
related charges.  He was sentenced to a total of ten years of Level V 
incarceration, to be suspended after successful completion of the Key 
Program for one year at Level IV Crest, to be followed by a total of four 
years of Level III probation and one year of Level II probation.   
 
(3) 
The Superior Court subsequently modified Wallace’s sentences 
on August 23, 2004 and October 8, 2004.  In its October 8, 2004 sentencing 
order, the Superior Court modified Wallace’s sentence for Assault on a State 
Officer to two years at Level V, to be suspended for one year at Level IV 
Crest Aftercare.  No probationary term was imposed. 
 
(4) 
In April 2006, Wallace pled guilty to new felony charges.  
Following a violation of probation (“VOP”) hearing in May 2006, the 
Superior Court found that Wallace had committed a VOP, revoked his 
probation and, on May 9, 2006, sentenced him to one year of Level V 
incarceration.   
 
(5) 
In his appeal, Wallace claimed that his VOP sentence is illegal 
because he was not on probation at the time the violation occurred and, 
therefore, the Superior Court should have granted his motion.  Wallace 
based his claim upon the Superior Court’s October 8, 2004 modified 
sentencing order, which suspended Wallace’s Level V sentence for Assault 
on a State Officer for one year at Level IV Crest Aftercare, but did not 
 
3
impose a probationary term.  The State’s position was that, because the 
Superior Court’s sentencing order did not correctly reflect its original intent 
to impose a probationary term, the matter should be remanded to permit the 
Superior Court to modify the sentencing order to reflect its original intent.   
 
(6) 
By Order dated December 4, 2006, we remanded this matter to 
the Superior Court for the purpose of reviewing and, if warranted, modifying 
its October 8, 2004 sentencing order.  On January 9, 2007, the Superior 
Court signed a corrected October 8, 2004 sentencing order, which sentenced 
Wallace on the conviction of Assault on a State Officer to two years at Level 
V, to be suspended for two years at Level IV Crest Aftercare, to be 
suspended after four months for one year at Level III.   Reading the 
sentencing order as a whole, the effect of this change was to give Wallace a 
total of two years of probation at Level III.1 
 
(7) 
Also on January 9, 2007, the Superior Court signed a second 
order explaining that, based on notes from its file, its October 8, 2004 
sentencing order was issued in response to a request from Wallace’s 
probation officer, who asked that Wallace’s sentence be modified to 
consolidate his probationary terms to run concurrently for two years 
                                                 
1 Wallace also had been sentenced to a one year, consecutive term of Level III probation 
for Possession of Heroin Within 1,000 Feet of a School.  All of his other probationary 
terms were concurrent. 
 
4
effective August 20, 2004.  The Superior Court further explained that the 
order did not reflect the probation officer’s request, as it was intended to do.  
 
(8) 
 On January 11, 2007, the Superior Court judge who had 
originally denied Wallace’s Rule 35(a) motion issued a supplemental order 
on remand again denying Wallace’s motion.  In the order, the judge 
confirmed that, based upon the corrected sentencing order issued on January 
9, 2007, Wallace was on probation on the date he was violated and would 
have remained on probation until August 20, 2006.       
 
(9) 
The Superior Court had the authority to correct its sentencing 
order to reflect its original intent.2  It is apparent in this case that the 
Superior Court’s October 8, 2004 sentencing order did not reflect its intent 
to honor the request of Wallace’s probation officer and give Wallace two 
years of concurrent probation at Level III.  Once the October 8, 2004 
sentencing order was corrected to reflect the Superior Court’s original intent, 
Wallace’s motion to correct his sentence was properly denied.3  We, 
therefore, conclude that the Superior Court’s denial of Wallace’s Rule 35(a) 
motion to correct his sentence must be affirmed.   
                                                 
2 Guyer v. State, 453 A.2d 462, 464-65 (Del. 1982). 
3 While Wallace correctly points out that this Court’s December 4, 2006 order 
erroneously referred to Level IV supervision as “probation,” that error has no impact on 
the result in this case. 
 
5
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
_/s/ Carolyn Berger____ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice