Case Title: Ward v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 18, 2006

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2006-05-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JOHN A. WARD, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 18, 2006 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 85006215DI 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: February 23, 2006 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: May 15, 2006 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 15th day of May 2006, 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, John A. Ward, filed an appeal from the 
Superior Court’s December 12, 2005 order denying his motion for correction of 
sentence pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 35.  The plaintiff-appellee, the 
State of Delaware, has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment on the 
 
2
ground that it is manifest on the face of the opening brief that the appeal is without 
merit.1  We agree and affirm. 
 
(2) 
In April 1978, Ward was found guilty by a Superior Court jury of 
Robbery in the First Degree and Assault in the Third Degree.  Ward was sentenced 
as a habitual offender to life imprisonment plus 1 year incarceration at Level V.  
Ward’s convictions and sentences were affirmed by this Court on direct appeal.2 
 
(3) 
In this appeal, Ward claims that the Superior Court incorrectly treated 
his motion as a motion to modify his sentence pursuant to Superior Court Criminal 
Rule 35(b).  In his motion in Superior Court, he argued that the evidence was 
insufficient to convict him, the trial judge improperly amended the indictment, 
defense counsel provided ineffective assistance, and his life sentence as a habitual 
offender is unconstitutional.   
 
(4) 
Even if Ward’s motion is considered under Rule 35(a), Ward still is 
not entitled to relief.  This Court previously has held that Rule 35(a) is not a proper 
vehicle for a defendant to obtain review of alleged errors occurring at trial.3  
Because Ward’s first three claims would require a review of his entire trial 
proceedings, as opposed to merely his sentences, no relief is available to him under 
Rule 35(a) with respect to those claims.   
                                                 
1 Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
2 Ward v. State, 414 A.2d 499 (Del. 1980). 
3 Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998). 
 
3
 
(5) 
The argument underlying Ward’s fourth claim is that his sentence as a 
habitual offender is unconstitutional under the Thirteenth Amendment of the 
United States Constitution, which prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude 
“except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly 
convicted . . . .”  Ward was convicted of two criminal offenses and his convictions 
were affirmed by this Court.  Moreover, Ward is serving a sentence for having 
committed those crimes, and is not engaged in any form of “slavery” or 
“involuntary servitude.”  There is, thus, no basis in law or fact for this claim.    
 
(6) 
It is manifest on the face of Ward’s opening brief that the 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’s motion to affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice