Case Title: Mills v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 317, 2004

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2005-01-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 LARRY MILLS,                      
           
Defendant Below- 
Appellant,   
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
     
 
 
     
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
   No. 317, 2004 
 
   Court Below---Superior Court 
   of the State of Delaware, 
   in and for New Castle County  
   Cr. A. No. VN01-10-0614-01 
                      
 
Submitted:  October 29, 2004   
Decided:  
January 7, 2005    
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 7th day of January 2005, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal and 
the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Larry Mills, filed an appeal from the 
Superior Court’s June 30, 2004 order denying his motion for correction of an 
illegal sentence pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a).  We find no merit 
to the appeal.  Accordingly, we AFFIRM.  
 
(2) 
On April 29, 2004, following a contested violation of probation 
(“VOP”) hearing in the Superior Court at which Mills was represented by counsel, 
Mills was found to have committed a VOP with respect to three separate 
 
 
-2-
probationary sentences.1  He was sentenced to a total of 4½ years incarceration at 
Level V, to be suspended after 18 months for decreasing levels of probation.  Mills 
did not appeal the finding of a VOP or his VOP sentences.  Instead, he filed a 
motion for correction of an illegal sentence,2 which was denied by the Superior 
Court. 
 
(3) 
In this appeal, Mills claims that his due process rights were violated 
because the Superior Court failed to follow the proper procedures at his VOP 
hearing.3  Specifically, he alleges that no bail was set for the VOP charges, he did 
not receive proper notice of the charges, and he had insufficient time to prepare a 
defense.   
 
(4) 
Rule 35(a) permits the Superior Court to correct an illegal sentence 
“at any time.”  “The ‘narrow function of Rule 35 is to permit correction of an 
illegal sentence, not to re-examine errors occurring at the trial or other proceedings 
prior to the imposition of sentence.’”4  “Relief under Rule 35(a) is available ‘when 
the sentence imposed exceeds the statutorily-imposed limits, [or] violates the 
                                                 
1 The sentences were in Cr. ID Nos. 0108020826, 0301015266, and 0304008528.  The finding of 
a VOP was based on Mills’ commission of a new criminal offense, failure to report to his 
probation officer, and failure to comply with the special conditions of his probation. 
2 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(a). 
3 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 32.1. 
4 Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998) (quoting Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 
424, 430 (1962)). 
 
 
-3-
Double Jeopardy Clause . . . .’”5  “A sentence is also illegal if it ‘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 a sentence which the judgment of conviction did 
not authorize.’”6    
 
(5) 
Mills does not contend that his VOP sentences exceed the statutory 
limits, constitute double jeopardy, or are ambiguous or contradictory.  The only 
contentions in his Rule 35(a) motion involve the VOP proceeding itself.  As such, 
no relief is available to Mills pursuant to Rule 35(a).7  Moreover, even if Mills had 
properly appealed his due process claims, this Court would not have been able to 
review them, since Mills failed to order a transcript of the VOP hearing.8   
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
                                                 
5 Id. (quoting United States v. Pavlico, 961 F.2d 440, 443 (4th Cir., 1992)). 
6 Id. (quoting United States v. Dougherty, 106 F.3d 1514, 1515 (10th Cir., 1997)). 
7 Id. (quoting Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. at 430). 
8 Tricoche v. State, 525 A.2d 151, 154 (Del. 1987) (it is the appellant’s burden to provide this 
Court with those portions of the record necessary for an effective review of the issues raised on 
appeal). 
 
 
-4-