Case Title: McCleaf v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 167, 2007

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2007-08-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ANTHONY MCCLEAF, 
 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 167, 2007 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Kent County 
§  Cr. ID 9910005729 
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:  June 20, 2007 
Decided:  August 20, 2007 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 20th day of August 2007, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief, the State’s motion to affirm and the record below, it appears 
to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Anthony McCleaf, filed this appeal from the 
Superior Court’s denial of his motion for correction of sentence.  The State 
of Delaware has filed a motion to affirm the judgment below on the ground 
that it is manifest on the face of McCleaf’s opening brief that his appeal is 
without merit.  We agree and affirm.   
(2) 
The record reflects that, in February 2000, McCleaf was found 
guilty following a non-jury trial of second degree forgery, shoplifting, and 
 
2
criminal impersonation.  The Superior Court, upon the State’s motion, 
declared McCleaf to be an habitual offender and sentenced him to a total 
period of ten years plus 30 days at Level V incarceration to be followed by a 
six month period of probation.  This Court affirmed his convictions and 
sentences on direct appeal.1  Since that time, McCleaf has filed various 
unsuccessful motions requesting a new trial, a modification of sentence, 
state postconviction relief, and federal habeas corpus relief.   
(3) 
In February 2007, McCleaf filed a motion requesting correction 
of an illegal sentence under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a), arguing that 
his sentence is illegal because he was not present at the Superior Court 
hearing on the State’s habitual offender motion and that two of his prior 
felony convictions had been obtained on the same day and should not have 
been considered as separate convictions for habitual offender purposes.  The 
Superior Court summarily denied McCleaf’s motion on the ground that it 
was not timely filed.  This appeal followed. 
 
(4) 
The gist of McCleaf’s argument on appeal is that his sentence is 
illegal because the Superior Court, on May 10, 2000, held a hearing on the 
State’s habitual offender motion without McCleaf being present.  As this 
Court has stated many times, however, a sentence is illegal when it exceeds 
                                                 
1 McCleaf v. State, 2001 WL 1586810 (Del. Dec. 4, 2001). 
 
3
the statutorily authorized limits, violates the Double Jeopardy Clause, 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 the substance of the sentence, or is a sentence which the 
judgment of conviction did not authorize.2  Accordingly, while titled as a 
motion for correction of illegal sentence, McCleaf’s motion, in fact, is a 
motion for correction of a sentence imposed in an illegal manner. 
 
(5) 
A motion for correction of a sentence imposed in an illegal 
manner is subject to the 90-day limitations period of Superior Court 
Criminal Rule 35(b).3  McCleaf’s motion, which was filed nearly seven 
years after his sentencing, clearly was untimely.  Consequently, we find no 
error in the Superior Court’s denial of McCleaf’s untimely motion. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
                                                 
2 Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998). 
3 Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a) states that the court “may correct a sentence 
imposed in an illegal manner within the time provided herein for the reduction of 
sentence.”  Rule 35(b) provides that the court “may reduce a sentence of imprisonment 
on a motion made within 90 days after the sentence is imposed.”