Case Title: Jones v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 480, 2003

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2004-03-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 DAMON JONES,                     
           
Defendant Below- 
Appellant,   
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
     
 
 
     
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
   No. 480, 2003 
 
   Court Below---Superior Court 
   of the State of Delaware, 
   in and for New Castle County  
   Cr. A. Nos. IN02-11-0697; 0700 
                      
 
Submitted:  January 29, 2004 
   Decided:  March 2, 2004   
 
Before BERGER, STEELE and JACOBS, Justices 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 2nd day of March 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, Damon Jones, filed an appeal from the 
Superior Court’s September 3, 2003 order denying his motion for correction of 
sentence pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a).  The plaintiff-appellee, 
the State of Delaware, has moved to affirm the judgment of the Superior Court on 
 
 
-2-
the ground that it is manifest on the face of Jones’ opening brief that the appeal is 
without merit.1  We agree and AFFIRM. 
 
(2) 
In November 2002, Jones was charged with various drug and motor 
vehicle offenses.  In July 2003, on the day of his trial, Jones pleaded guilty to 
Trafficking in Cocaine and Maintaining a Vehicle for the Distribution of 
Controlled Substances.  He was sentenced to a total of 6 years incarceration at 
Level V, to be suspended after 5 years for probation.   
 
(3) 
In August 2003, Jones filed a motion in the Superior Court to correct 
his sentence.  The basis for the motion was that the medical examiner’s report 
allegedly failed to establish that the weight of the drugs met the statutory minimum 
for a charge of trafficking.  The Superior Court denied the motion on the ground 
that Jones’ motion did not allege facts supporting the correction of an illegal 
sentence under Rule 35(a).   
 
(4) 
In this appeal, Jones abandons the claim he presented to the Superior 
Court and instead bases his appeal on the claim that his sentence should be 
corrected to reflect guidelines allegedly adopted by the Delaware House of 
Representatives that changed the minimum weight for a charge of trafficking.   
                                                 
1 Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
 
 
-3-
 
(5) 
This Court generally will not consider claims that were not presented 
to the trial court in the first instance.2  In the interests of justice, the Court may 
consider and determine any question not so presented.3  We do not find that the 
interests of justice require our consideration of Jones’ claim in this case, however, 
since Jones has presented no evidence that his sentence was illegal under Rule 
35(a).4   
 
(6) 
It is manifest on the face of Jones’ 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/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice    
 
 
                                                 
2 Supr. Ct. R. 8. 
3 Id. 
4 Tatem v. State, 787 A.2d 80, 81 (Del. 2001) (a sentence is illegal if it is outside the 
statutory authorization, violates double jeopardy or is ambiguous or contradictory).