Case Title: Smith v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 134, 2002

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2002-08-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
CHARLES E. SMITH 
(a.k.a. Edward Smith), 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 134, 2002 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr.A. Nos. IN00-10-0257 
§                   IN99-09-1177 
§                   IN00-08-0554 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: June 17, 2002 
 
 
 
 
  Decided:   August7, 2002 
 
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, BERGER and STEELE, Justices 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 7th day of August 2002, 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, Charles E. Smith (a.k.a. Edward Smith), 
claims error in the Superior Court’s February 20, 2002 denial of his motion for 
correction of an illegal sentence.1  The plaintiff-appellee, State of Delaware, has 
moved to affirm the judgment of the Superior Court on the ground that it is 
                                                          
 
1SUPER. CT. CRIM. R. 35(a). 
 
2
manifest on the face of Smith’s opening brief that the appeal is without merit.2  We 
agree and AFFIRM. 
 
(2) 
In February 2001, Smith pleaded guilty to Possession of Heroin with 
Intent to Deliver, Assault in the Second Degree, and Carrying a Concealed Deadly 
Weapon.  He was sentenced to a total of 16 years incarceration at Level V, to be 
suspended after 7 years for a total of 9 years at decreasing levels of probation.  In 
August 2001, Smith filed a motion for reduction of sentence, which the Superior 
Court denied.  In September 2001, Smith filed a motion for postconviction relief, 
which the Superior Court also denied.  Smith’s subsequent appeal to this Court was 
dismissed because it was untimely.3  In November 2001, Smith filed a petition for 
a writ of habeas corpus, which the Superior Court denied.  
 
(3) 
In his appeal, Smith claims that his sentence is illegal because: a) he 
was never properly arrested and charged; b) his counsel provided ineffective 
assistance in connection with the guilty plea and sentencing; and c) his criminal 
history did not warrant the sentence he received. 
 
(4) 
Smith’s claim of an illegal sentence is unavailing.  He raised 
essentially the same issues he raises here in his previous unsuccessful 
                                                          
 
2SUPR. CT. R. 25(a). 
3Smith v. State, Del. Supr., No. 614, 2001, Berger, J. (Jan. 7, 2002). 
 
3
postconviction motion.4  Smith may not re-litigate his Rule 61 motion by merely 
recasting it as a motion to correct sentence under Rule 35(a).5  
 
(5) 
It is manifest on the face of Smith’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/ Myron T. Steele__________________ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                          
 
4SUPER. CT. CRIM. R. 61. 
5Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 579 (Del. 1998).