Case Title: Israel v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 141, 2016

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2016-06-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
LEE ISRAEL, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 141, 2016 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§ 
§  Cr. ID 85002615DI 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: May 3, 2016 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
June  20, 2016 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices. 
 
   ORDER 
 
This 20th day of June 2016, upon consideration of the opening brief, 
the motion to affirm, and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Lee Israel, filed this appeal from the Superior 
Court’s order denying his motion for correction of sentence.  The State filed 
a motion to affirm the judgment below on the ground that it is manifest on 
the face of Israel’s opening brief that his appeal is without merit.  We agree 
and affirm. 
 (2) 
A Superior Court jury convicted Israel in 1985 of one count 
each of Rape in the First Degree, Burglary in the First Degree, Attempted 
Burglary in the Second Degree, and Theft.  In February 1986, the Superior 
 
2
Court sentenced Israel to life imprisonment plus a term of 52 years.  We 
affirmed his convictions and sentence on direct appeal.1  Since that time, 
Israel has filed multiple unsuccessful motions for postconviction relief.2   
(3) 
In February 2016, Israel filed a motion for correction of illegal 
sentence.  He argued that his life sentence for rape is illegal because it 
constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment of 
the United States Constitution.   The Superior Court denied Israel’s motion.  
This appeal followed. 
(4) 
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.3  Under Rule 35(a), a sentence is 
illegal if it 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 the substance of the sentence, or is an unauthorized sentence.4 
(5) 
Israel raises one argument in his opening brief on appeal.  He 
contends that statutory changes that have been enacted since his 1986 
                                                 
1 Israel v. State, 1986 WL 17349 (Del. Aug. 22, 1986). 
2 See Israel v. State, 2015 WL 4651324 (Del. Aug. 5, 2015); Israel v. State, 2005 WL 
535349 (Del. Feb. 25, 2005); Israel v. State, 1996 WL 283596 (Del. May 21, 1996). 
3 Fountain v. State, 2014 WL 4102069, at *1 (Del. Aug. 19, 2014). 
4 Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998). 
 
3
sentencing reflect “evolving standards of decency”5 that render his life 
sentence disproportionate and excessive under the Eighth Amendment’s 
prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. He points out that since 
1986, the Delaware General Assembly has eliminated mandatory life 
sentences for rape and has reduced the minimum mandatory terms of 
incarceration on all of his offenses.  He suggests that these statutory changes 
reflect a consensus that his life sentence for rape is disproportionate. 
(6) 
After careful consideration, we find no merit to Israel’s 
argument.  Under 11 Del. C. § 773(a)(2)a and § 4205(b)(1), a life sentence 
for first degree rape was a legal punishment when Israel was sentenced in 
1985 and is still a legal punishment today.  In short, his sentence is not 
illegal, and the Superior Court did not err in concluding that Israel’s motion 
for correction of sentence had no legal merit.   
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                                 
5 Wallace v. State, 956 A.2d 630, 639 (Del. 2008).