Case Title: Campbell v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 357, 2022

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2022-11-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
KEITH CAMPBELL, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§    No. 357, 2022 
§ 
§    Court Below—Superior Court 
§    of the State of Delaware 
§   
§    Cr. ID No. 1411008699 (N) 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:  October 26, 2022 
 
 
 
 
Decided:  November 15, 2022 
 
Before VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 
After careful consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the State’s motion 
to affirm, and the record on appeal, we conclude that the judgment below should be 
affirmed on the basis of the Superior Court’s order, dated September 8, 2022, 
denying the appellant’s motion for correction of illegal sentence.  As explained in 
this Court’s decision in Appeal No. 26, 2022,1 the appellant is not entitled to relief 
under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a) on the grounds that he received a five-
year minimum-mandatory sentence consistent with 11 Del. C. § 1448(e)(1)b instead 
of a higher, six-year minimum-mandatory sentence consistent with 11 Del. C. § 
 
1 Campbell v. State, 2022 WL 1278996 (Del. Apr. 28, 2022). 
2 
 
1448(e)(2)b.2  Relief is available under Rule 35(a) if the challenged sentence 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.3  The Superior Court did not abuse its 
discretion by denying the appellant’s motion in the circumstances of this case.4 
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/  James T. Vaughn, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
2 11 Del. C. § 1448 (effective July 4, 2014, to Dec. 31, 2016). 
3 Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998). 
4 See Fountain v. State, 2014 WL 4102069, at *1 (Del. Aug. 19, 2014) (“We review the Superior 
Court’s denial of a motion for correction of sentence under Rule 35(a) for abuse of discretion, 
although questions of law are reviewed de novo.”).  Cf. Turner v. State, 957 A.2d 565, 575 (Del. 
2008) (concluding that Superior Court did not commit reversible error by rejecting State’s request 
to apply enhanced, habitual-offender sentencing to each of nine convictions and instead imposing 
enhanced sentencing for only two of those convictions).