Case Title: Griffith v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 81, 2023

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2024-01-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
EDUARDO A. GRIFFITH, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 81, 2023 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID No. 2108016001 (K)   
§   
§  
 
Submitted: November 17, 2023 
Decided: 
January 3, 2024 
 
Before VALIHURA, TRAYNOR, and LEGROW, Justices. 
 
 
ORDER 
 
After consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal, it appears 
to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Eduardo A. Griffith, filed this appeal from the Superior 
Court’s denial of his motion for correction of illegal sentence.  For the following 
reasons, we affirm the Superior Court’s judgment. 
(2) 
In March 2022, a grand jury indicted Griffith for multiple weapon and 
traffic offenses.  On September 14, 2022, Griffith pleaded guilty to possession of 
firearm ammunition by a person prohibited (“PABPP”) in exchange for dismissal of 
the remaining charges.  The plea agreement originally reflected that Griffith was 
pleading guilty to possession of a firearm by a person prohibited (“PFBPP”), but that 
 
2 
language was stricken out and replaced with PABPP.  The parties requested 
immediate sentencing and recommended a sentence of three to eight years of Level 
V incarceration, suspended after three years for six months of Level IV Department 
of Correction discretion, followed by one year of Level III GPS.   
(3) 
After accepting Griffith’s guilty plea, the Superior Court sentenced 
Griffith to eight years of Level V incarceration, suspended after three years for six 
months of Level IV Department of Correction discretion, followed by one year of 
Level III GPS.  Griffith did not appeal, but did file an unsuccessful motion for 
sentence modification. 
(4) 
On January 31, 2023, Griffith filed a motion for correction of illegal 
sentence under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a).  He argued that the plea 
paperwork incorrectly stated that there was a three-year minimum mandatory 
sentence for PABPP and that his three-year minimum mandatory sentence for 
PABPP was illegal.  The Superior Court denied the motion, finding that the parties 
had recommended the sentence imposed.  Griffith filed a motion for reargument, 
which the Superior Court denied.  This appeal followed. 
(5) 
We review the denial of a motion for sentence correction for abuse of 
discretion.1  We review questions of law de novo.2  A sentence is illegal if it exceeds 
 
1 Fountain v. State, 2014 WL 4102069, at *1 (Del. Aug. 19, 2014). 
2 Id. 
 
3 
statutory limits, violates double jeopardy, is ambiguous with respect to the time and 
manner in which it is to be served, is internally contradictory, omits a term required 
to be imposed by statute, is uncertain as to its substance, or is a sentence that the 
judgment of conviction did not authorize.3  On appeal, Griffith argues that his 
PABPP sentence is illegal because there is no minimum mandatory sentence for 
PABPP.    
(6) 
Although Griffith is correct that there is no minimum mandatory 
sentence for PABPP, the Superior Court did not in fact impose a minimum 
mandatory sentence for his PABPP conviction.  The sentencing range for PABPP, a 
class D felony, is zero to eight years of Level V incarceration.4  Section 1448 
contains minimum mandatory sentences for possession of a firearm or destructive 
weapon by a person prohibited, but not for PABPP.5   
(7) 
As Griffith emphasizes, the plea paperwork incorrectly refers to a three-
year minimum mandatory sentence for PABPP.  The Superior Court caught the 
mistake during the plea colloquy and asked the parties if the language related to the 
original plea for PFBPP.  Griffith’s counsel confirmed that it did and that PABPP 
 
3 Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998). 
4 11 Del. C. § 1448(c) (defining possession of firearm or firearm ammunition as a class D felony); 
11 Del. C. § 4205(b)(4) (providing that the sentence for a class D felony is up to eight years of 
Level V incarceration). 
5 11 Del. C. § 1448(e)(1) (establishing minimum mandatory sentences for possession of a firearm 
or destructive weapon for people with previous violent felony convictions). 
 
4 
was a class D felony.  The Superior Court judge and Griffith then had the following 
exchange: 
The Court: So you understand, sir, that you—going through the initial 
offer in the case, it looked like that had a minimum mandatory offense.  
This offense you’re pleading to has a potential for up to eight years in 
prison, but it does not carry minimum mandatory time. 
 
The Defendant: Yes, Your Honor. 
 
The Court: And you understand, sir, that the Court’s not bound by your 
sentencing agreement with the State. 
 
The Defendant: Yes, Your Honor.6 
 
(8) 
After completing the plea colloquy, accepting Griffith’s plea as 
knowing and voluntary, and giving the parties the opportunity to address sentencing, 
the Superior Court sentenced Griffith to eight years of Level V incarceration, 
suspended after three years for decreasing levels of supervision.  This sentence did 
not exceed statutory limits, violate double jeopardy, or omit a term required to be 
imposed by statute.  Nor was it ambiguous with respect to the time and manner in 
which it was to be served, internally contradictory, uncertain as to its substance, or 
unauthorized by the judgment of conviction.  The sentence was not illegal and the 
Superior Court did not err in denying the motion for correction of illegal sentence.   
 
 
 
6 Sept. 14, 2022 Tr. at 6. 
 
5 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
BY THE COURT: 
/s/ Gary F. Traynor 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice