Case Title: Marvel v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 485, 2022

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2023-03-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
LARRY MARVEL, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 485, 2022 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID No. 0510007925 (N) 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:   February 16, 2023 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
March 3, 2023 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 
Upon consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the appellee’s motion to 
affirm, and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Larry D. Marvel, filed this appeal from the Superior 
Court’s denial of a motion for correction of illegal sentence.  The State has moved 
to affirm the judgment below on the ground that it is manifest in the face of Marvel’s 
opening brief that his appeal is without merit.  We agree and affirm. 
(2) 
In 2006, a Superior Court jury found Marvel guilty of second-degree 
criminal solicitation and second-degree conspiracy.  The Superior Court granted the 
State’s petition to declare Marvel a habitual offender under 11 Del. C. § 4214(a) and 
sentenced Marvel as follows: (i) for Criminal Solicitation in the Second Degree, as 
2 
 
a habitual offender under § 4214(a), to life imprisonment; and (ii) for Conspiracy in 
the Second Degree, to two years of imprisonment.  This Court affirmed Marvel’s 
convictions on direct appeal in 2007.1  Since then, Marvel has filed multiple motions 
for postconviction relief or for correction or modification of his sentence,2 including 
challenging the sufficiency of proof that Marvel qualified for habitual-offender 
sentencing.3 
(3) 
In October 2022, Marvel filed yet another motion for correction of 
illegal sentence under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a), again claiming that his 
habitual-offender sentence is illegal because the State presented insufficient 
 
1 Marvel v. State, 2007 WL 2713271 (Del. Sept. 18, 2007). 
2 See, e.g., Marvel v. State, 2021 WL 566410 (Del. Feb. 15, 2021) (affirming denial of motion to 
dismiss the indictment and noting that “this is Marvel’s eleventh appeal in Criminal ID No. 
0510007925”); Marvel v. State, 2020 WL 1933966 (Del. Apr. 20, 2020) (affirming denial of 
request for sentence modification); Marvel v. State, 2019 WL 1492582 (Del. Apr. 2, 2019) 
(affirming denial of motion for correction of illegal sentence); Marvel v. State, 2018 WL 2437235 
(Del. May 30, 2018) (affirming denial of motion for correction of illegal sentence); Marvel v. State, 
2014 WL 2949362 (Del. June 26, 2014) (affirming denial of fourth motion for postconviction 
relief); Marvel v. State, 2013 WL 4542708 (Del. Aug. 23, 2013) (affirming denial of second motion 
for postconviction relief); Marvel v. State, 2008 WL 4151830 (Del. Sept. 10, 2008) (affirming 
denial of first motion for postconviction relief). 
3 E.g., Marvel v. State, 2010 WL 3636193, at *1 (Del. Sept. 20, 2010) (affirming denial of motion 
for correction of illegal sentence and stating that “the State provided sufficient support for 
Marvel’s status as a habitual offender and therefore his sentence is not illegal under Rule 35(a)”); 
Marvel v. State, 2009 WL 2158107, at *1 (Del. July 21, 2009) (affirming denial of motion for 
correction of illegal sentence and stating that Marvel’s claim that “the State’s motion to declare 
him a habitual offender was insufficient . . . to identify the predicate felonies” did not entitle him 
to relief under Rule 35(a) because it alleged “error only with respect to the habitual offender 
proceedings, which occurred prior to the imposition of sentence” and “[e]ven if viewed on the 
merits, Marvel’s claim is unavailing, since, at the habitual offender hearing, he admitted to being 
convicted of at least three of the felonies for which he now claims the State presented inadequate 
proof”). 
3 
 
evidence to establish Marvel’s predicate felony convictions for sentencing under 11 
Del. C. § 4214(a).  The Superior Court denied the motion, and Marvel has appealed. 
(4) 
We review the denial of a motion for correction of sentence for abuse 
of discretion.4  To the extent the claim involves a question of law, we review the 
claim de novo.5  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 its substance, or is a sentence that the judgment of conviction did not 
authorize.6  
(5) 
The Superior Court did not err in denying Marvel’s motion for 
correction of sentence.  As the court recognized, Marvel’s argument that the State 
did not sufficiently prove his predicate offenses has already been considered and 
rejected.7  It is therefore barred by the “law of the case” doctrine.8  It remains clear 
that Marvel’s claim is without merit.  At his sentencing, Marvel, through his counsel, 
initially indicated that he intended to challenge his eligibility for habitual-offender 
 
4 Fountain v. State, 2014 WL 4102069, at *1 (Del. Aug. 19, 2014). 
5 Id. 
6 Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998). 
7 See, e.g., Marvel, 2009 WL 2158107, at *1 (“Even if viewed on the merits, Marvel’s claim is 
unavailing, since, at the habitual offender hearing, he admitted to being convicted of at least three 
of the felonies for which he now claims the State presented inadequate proof.”). 
8 See Brittingham, 705 A.2d at 579 (“The ‘law of the case’ doctrine is well established in Delaware.  
That doctrine bars relitigation, under Rule 35(a), of an ‘illegal sentence’ where that issue has been 
previously decided by this Court.” (citations omitted)). 
4 
 
sentencing.9  After counsel and Marvel conferred further, Marvel admitted, through 
his counsel, that “there are the requisite offenses in the requisite chronological 
order.”10  Marvel was given the opportunity to speak before he was sentenced and 
did not contradict his attorney’s statements on his behalf.11  Marvel is bound by his 
lawyer’s representations, and the Superior Court did not abuse its discretion by 
denying his motion for correction of sentence.12 
(6) 
We previously warned Marvel that if he continued to file appeals from 
orders denying repetitive claims, he would be enjoined from filing future appeals 
without leave of the Court.13  As discussed above, this is not the first time that he 
has challenged the predicate offenses.  We now conclude that Marvel’s repetitive 
and frivolous filings constitute an abuse of the judicial process.  Thus, the Clerk of 
this Court is directed to refuse any future filings from Marvel related to Criminal ID 
No. 0510007925 unless the filing is accompanied by the required filing fee or a 
completed motion to proceed in forma pauperis with a sworn affidavit containing 
 
9 Appendix to Opening Brief, at A48-49 (Sentencing Transcript at 2:22-3:20). 
10 Id. at A49-50 (Sentencing Transcript at 3:19-4:11). 
11 Id. at A53 (Sentencing Transcript at 7:12-7:14). 
12 See Durham v. State, 2018 WL 3246188 (Del. July 3, 2018) (rejecting claim that sentence was 
illegal because the State failed to offer sufficient proof that Durham had three predicate felony 
convictions and stating: “At his sentencing, Durham admitted, through his counsel, that he had 
three qualifying predicate felonies and was eligible for sentencing as a habitual offender.  Durham 
was given the opportunity to speak before he was sentenced and did not contradict his attorney’s 
statements on his behalf.  Durham is bound by his lawyer’s representations.”). 
13 Marvel, 2021 WL 566410, at *2.  
5 
 
the certifications required by 10 Del. C. § 8803(e) and that motion is first granted by 
the Court. 
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/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
        Chief Justice