Case Title: Allison v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 302, 2016

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2016-10-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IDYLL ALLISON, 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 302, 2016 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below—Superior Court of the   
 
 
 
 
 
  
§ 
State of Delaware  
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
Cr. ID No. 0512013537 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Submitted: August 31, 2016 
Decided: 
October 27, 2016 
 
Before HOLLAND, VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 27th day of October 2016, having considered the appellant’s opening 
brief, the appellee’s motion to affirm, and the Superior Court record, it appears to 
the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The appellant, Idyll Allison, filed this appeal from the Superior 
Court’s order dated May 11, 2016, denying his motion for correction of sentence 
under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a).  The State has moved to affirm the 
Superior Court’s judgment on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Allison’s 
opening brief that his appeal is without merit.  We agree and affirm. 
2 
 
 
(2) 
Allison was convicted of several criminal offenses following his jury 
trials in July and September 2006.1  On October 3, 2006, the State filed a motion to 
declare Allison a habitual offender under 11 Del. C. § 4214(b).2  The Superior 
Court granted the motion at Allison’s sentencing on December 1, 2006, and 
sentenced Allison to life in prison and an additional term of years at Level V.  
 
(3) 
In April 2016, more than nine years after his sentencing, Allison filed 
a motion for correction of sentence under Rule 35(a).3  Allison claimed that his 
sentence was illegally imposed because the Superior Court did not hold a proper 
hearing on the motion to declare him a habitual offender.  The Superior Court 
denied the Rule 35(a) motion as without merit.  This appeal followed.   
 
(4) 
On appeal, Allison continues to argue that his sentence was illegally 
imposed because the Superior Court did not hold a hearing on the motion to 
declare him a habitual offender.  Having considered the parties’ positions on 
appeal, we conclude that the Superior Court’s denial of the Rule 35(a) motion 
should be affirmed.   
                                          
 
1 This Court affirmed the convictions on direct appeal in 2008, Allison v. State, 2008 WL 308230 
(Del. Jan. 31, 2008), and the denial of postconviction relief in 2010, Allison v. State, 2010 WL 
3733919 (Del. Sept. 24, 2010). 
2 See 11 Del. C. § 4214(b) (providing for imposition of life sentence on habitual criminal) (Supp. 
2016).  
3 It was Allison’s second motion under Rule 35(a). The denial of Allison’s first Rule 35(a) 
motion was affirmed on appeal.  Allison v. State, 2014 WL 7010956 (Del. Dec. 10, 2014). 
3 
 
 
(5) 
First, we agree with the Superior Court that Allison’s claim is without 
merit.  Under 11 Del. C. § 4215(b), “[i]f it shall appear to the satisfaction of the 
[Superior] Court at a hearing on the [habitual offender] motion that the defendant 
falls within § 4214 of this title, the [Superior] Court shall enter an order declaring 
the defendant an habitual criminal and shall impose sentence accordingly.”4  In this 
case, the record reflects that the habitual offender motion was considered in open 
court at sentencing where defense counsel acknowledged that Allison was eligible 
for sentencing as a habitual offender on the basis of the predicate offenses in the 
motion.5        
 
(6) 
Second, Allison’s motion for correction of sentence sought to correct 
the manner in which the sentence was imposed.6  A motion for correction of 
sentence imposed in an illegal manner must be filed within ninety days of 
sentencing.7  In this case, because Allison’s motion for correction of sentence was 
not filed within ninety days of sentencing, we affirm the Superior Court’s 
                                          
 
4 11 Del. C. § 4215(b) (2010). 
5 Sentencing Tr. at 3 (Dec. 1, 2006). 
6 Guinn v. State, 2015 WL 3613555 (Del. June 9, 2015) (holding that motion for correction of 
sentence claiming error at enhanced sentencing sought relief from sentence imposed in an illegal 
manner); McLeaf v. State, 2007 WL 2359554 (Del. Aug. 20, 2007) (holding that motion for 
correction of sentence claiming that habitual offender hearing was held outside of defendant’s 
presence sought correction of sentence imposed in an illegal manner); Fennell v. State, 2005 WL 
1950215 (Del. July 19, 2005) (holding that motion for correction of sentence objecting to 
enhanced sentence imposed in absence of proof of predicate offense sought correction of 
sentence imposed in an illegal manner). 
7 Del. Super. Ct. R. 35(a), (b). 
4 
 
judgment on the alternative basis that the motion for correction of sentence was 
untimely filed.8  
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is 
GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice  
                                          
 
8 Unitrin, Inc. v. American Gen. Corp., 651 A.2d 1361, 1390 (Del. 1995) (noting that appellate 
court may affirm judgment on basis of different rationale than rationale articulated by trial 
court).