Case Title: Murphy v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 226, 2006

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2006-07-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JIMMIE LEE MURPHY, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 226, 2006 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for Kent County 
§  Cr.A. Nos. IK95-09-0365; 0366 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: June 15, 2006 
 
 
 
 
Decided:    July 27, 2006 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, BERGER and JACOBS Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 27th day of July 2006, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief and the appellee’s motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 25(a), it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Jimmie Lee Murphy, filed an appeal 
from the Superior Court’s April 10, 2006 order denying his motion for 
correction of sentence pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 35.  The 
plaintiff-appellee, the State of Delaware, has moved to affirm the Superior 
 
2
Court’s judgment on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Murphy’s 
opening brief that his appeal is without merit.1  We agree and affirm. 
 
(2) 
In May 1996, Murphy was found guilty by a Superior Court 
jury of Delivery of Cocaine and Maintaining a Dwelling for Keeping 
Controlled Substances.  He was sentenced as a habitual offender to life 
imprisonment.2  Murphy’s convictions and sentences were affirmed by this 
Court on direct appeal.3 
 
(3) 
In this appeal, Murphy claims that: a) his sentence is illegal 
under Rule 35(a) because the Superior Court’s finding that he was a habitual 
offender was not supported by evidence of the requisite number of prior 
offenses; and b) the Superior Court abused its discretion and violated 
Murphy’s constitutional rights by summarily denying his motion and by 
deciding the motion on the basis of Rule 35(b) rather than Rule 35(a). 
 
(4) 
Rule 35(a) permits the Superior Court to correct an illegal 
sentence “at any time.”  Relief under Rule 35(a) is available when the 
sentence imposed exceeds the statutorily authorized 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 
                                                 
1 Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
2 Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 4214(b). 
3 Murphy v. State, Del. Supr., No. 388, 1996, Hartnett, J. (May 30, 1997). 
 
3
statute, is uncertain as to its substance, or is a sentence that the judgment of 
conviction did not authorize.4 
 
(5) 
Murphy’s first claim is that his sentence as a habitual offender 
is illegal under Rule 35(a) because Attempted Delivery of Cocaine is not a 
proper requisite offense for habitual offender status.  Murphy is incorrect as 
a matter of law.  Attempted Delivery of Cocaine constitutes an offense of the 
same grade and degree as Delivery of Cocaine under Del. Code Ann. tit. 16, 
§ 4751.5  A defendant who has twice been convicted of violating that statute, 
first, by being convicted of Delivery of Cocaine and, second, by being 
convicted of Attempted Delivery of Cocaine, is eligible, following his third 
violation, for habitual offender status and the imposition of a life sentence.6  
Murphy’s first claim is, thus, without merit. 
 
(6) 
Murphy’s second claim is that the Superior Court erred and 
abused its discretion by deciding his motion for correction of illegal sentence 
under Rule 35(b) rather than Rule 35(a).  Although Murphy is correct that 
the Superior Court apparently decided his motion under the wrong 
subsection of Rule 35, that error was harmless.  Murphy’s sentence is not 
                                                 
4 Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998). 
5 Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 531 (“Attempt to commit a crime is an offense of the same 
grade and degree as the most serious offense which the accused is found guilty of 
attempting.”) 
6 Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 4214(b) (“Any person who has been two times convicted of a 
felony or an attempt to commit a felony [such as Del. Code Ann. tit. 16, § 4751] is 
declared to be an habitual criminal, and the court . . . shall impose a life sentence . . . .”)  
 
4
illegal and we find that the Superior Court correctly so determined.7  
Murphy’s second claim is, thus, without merit. 
 
(7) 
It is manifest on the face of Murphy’s opening brief that this 
appeal is without merit because the issues presented on appeal are controlled 
by settled Delaware law and, to the extent that judicial discretion is 
implicated, clearly there was no abuse of discretion. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Supreme 
Court Rule 25(a), the State of Delaware’s motion to affirm is GRANTED.  
The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
         Justice    
 
 
                                                 
7 Unitrin, Inc. v. American General Corp., 651 A.2d 1361, 1390 (Del. 1995) (This Court 
may affirm on grounds different from those relied upon by the trial court).