Case Title: Williams v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 470, 2010

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2010-11-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DAVID M. WILLIAMS, 
 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 470, 2010 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 9803018202B 
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: September 2, 2010 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: November 8, 2010 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 8th day of November 2010, upon consideration of the opening 
brief and the State’s motion to affirm, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, David Williams, filed this appeal from the 
Superior Court’s denial of his motion for correction of sentence.  The State of 
Delaware has filed a motion to affirm the judgment below on the ground that 
it is manifest on the face of the appellant’s opening brief that the appeal is 
without merit.  We agree and affirm. 
(2) 
The record reflects that, in April 1998, a grand jury returned 
three separate indictments against Williams.  Williams failed to appear for his 
arraignment and was arrested in July 1998 on new criminal charges.  The 
 
2
grand jury returned a fourth indictment against Williams.  In October 1998, 
the State obtained a superseding indictment, which incorporated three of the 
indictments into the fourth.  Case ID 9803018202 was designated as the lead 
case.  Four counts of the superseding indictment were later severed and 
redesignated as Case ID 9803018202B.  Williams ultimately was convicted of 
those four charges in August 1999.  He was sentenced as a habitual offender.  
On direct appeal, this Court affirmed his convictions of two counts of 
attempted burglary, possession of burglar tools, and criminal mischief.1  
(3) 
 In July 2010, Williams filed a motion for correction of an illegal 
sentence under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a) on the ground that his 
status sheet maintained by the Department of Correction incorrectly lists him 
as being convicted under the indictment in Case ID 9803018210, which was 
dismissed by the State upon the issuance of the superseding indictment.  The 
Superior Court denied Williams’ motion. 
(4) 
After careful consideration, we find it manifest the Superior 
Court’s judgment denying Williams’ sentence correction motion should be 
affirmed.  The sentence imposed by the Superior Court was within statutorily 
authorized limits and was otherwise legal.2 The DOC’s recordkeeping error 
                                                 
1 Williams v. State, 2000 WL 975057 (Del. May 30, 2000). 
2 See Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998). 
 
3
reflecting the wrong case identification number has no impact on the sentence 
that Williams’ currently is serving, which is entirely legal.   
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice