Case Title: Elliott v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 540, 2003

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2004-01-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
DENNIS A. ELLIOTT,                      
           
Defendant Below- 
Appellant,   
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
     
 
 
     
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
   No. 540, 2003 
 
   Court Below – Superior Court 
   of the State of Delaware, 
   in and for New Castle County  
   Cr. A. No. IN01-08-0015 
                      
 
Submitted:  November 21, 2003 
   Decided:  January 20, 2004   
 
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 20th day of January 2004, 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, Dennis A. Elliott, filed an appeal from the 
Superior Court’s October 22, 2003 corrected sentencing order.  The plaintiff-
appellee, the State of Delaware, has moved to affirm the judgment of the Superior 
Court on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Elliott’s opening brief that the 
appeal is without merit.1  We agree and affirm. 
                                                 
1 Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
 
 
-2-
 
(2) 
On December 19, 2002, Elliott pleaded guilty to Burglary in the Third 
Degree and Possession of Burglar Tools.  He was sentenced to 3 years 
incarceration at Level V, to be suspended after 18 months for 18 months of 
probation.  The effective date of the sentence was June 17, 2002, reflecting credit 
for the time the Superior Court judge believed Elliott had spent continuously at 
Level V awaiting trial. 2   
 
(3) 
The Superior Court subsequently ascertained that Elliott had not been 
in custody continuously between June 17, 2002 and December 19, 2002.3  On 
October 22, 2003, the Superior Court issued a corrected sentencing order, which 
changed the effective date of the sentence to September 24, 2002, the first day of 
the period Elliott continuously spent at Level V awaiting trial on the burglary 
charges. 
 
(4) 
The Superior Court has the authority to correct “errors in the record 
arising from oversight or omission . . . at any time.”4  The effective date in the 
Superior Court’s original sentencing order was based upon an oversight on the part 
                                                 
2 Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 3901(b) (2001). 
3 It appears that Elliott was arrested on a capias on June 17, 2002, released on bail on July 
11, 2002, and arrested on another capias on September 24, 2002. 
4 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 36. 
 
 
-3-
of the sentencing judge and, therefore, was appropriately corrected by the issuance 
of a corrected sentencing order.5        
 
(5) 
It is manifest on the face of Elliott’s opening brief that the 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/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
5 The sentence also was illegal, since it gave Elliott Level V credit for a period of time he 
was not incarcerated.  Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 3901(b) (2001).