Case Title: Clark v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 350, 2005

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2006-05-31T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JEROME D. CLARK, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  Nos. 350, 2005 
§   
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 0103004655 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: March 22, 2006 
  Decided: May 31, 2006 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 31st day of May 2006, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief, the State’s motion to affirm, and the record below, it appears 
to the Court that: 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Jerome D. Clark, filed this appeal 
from the Superior Court’s denial of his motion for correction of sentence.  
The State has filed a motion to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment on the 
ground that it is manifest on the face of Clark’s opening brief that the appeal 
is without merit.  We agree and affirm. 
(2) 
In April 2002, Clark pled guilty to once count of possession of 
cocaine within 1000 feet of a school.  The Superior Court sentenced him to 
 
 
-2-
four years at Level V imprisonment, to be suspended after serving two years 
for probation.  Thereafter, he was found in violation of his probation on two 
separate occasions.  At the most recent VOP hearing in June 2005, the 
Superior Court revoked Clark’s probation and sentenced him to two years 
imprisonment, suspended after 18 months imprisonment to be followed by a 
discharge from probation as unimproved. 
(3) 
Clark did not appeal from the Superior Court’s VOP sentence.  
Instead, he filed a motion for correction of sentence claiming that the 
original sentence imposed in July 2002 exceeded the sentence authorized by 
statute.  According to Clark, possession of cocaine within 1000 feet of a 
school is a class G felony for which the authorized sentencing range is zero 
to two years imprisonment.  Thus, Clark asserts that the Superior Court’s 
original four-year sentence is illegal. 
(4) 
Clark’s argument is simply wrong.  Pursuant to 16 Del. C. § 
4767(a)(1), the authorized sentence for a conviction of possession of cocaine 
within 1000 feet of a school is up to thirty years imprisonment.  Thus, the 
Superior Court’s original sentence was authorized by statute, and the 
Superior Court did not err in denying Clark’s motion for correction of 
sentence. 
 
 
-3-
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED.  
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
Chief Justice