Title: Jones v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JOSEPH E. JONES, 
 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 55, 2023 
§   
§  Count Below–Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID No. 1712008278 (N) 
§   
§   
§                                            
   
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: April 6, 2023 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
June 5, 2023 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
After consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the State’s motion to 
affirm, and the record on appeal, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Joseph E. Jones, filed this appeal from the Superior 
Court’s denial of his motion for correction of illegal sentence.  The State has filed a 
motion to affirm the judgment below on the ground that it is manifest on the face of 
Jones’s opening brief that his appeal is without merit.  We agree and affirm. 
(2) 
In April 2018, a Superior Court grand jury indicted Jones for first-
degree unlawful sexual contact, first-degree sexual abuse of a child by a person in a 
position of trust, continuous sexual abuse of a child, and three counts of first-degree 
rape.  On August 16, 2018, Jones pleaded guilty to continuous sexual abuse of a 
2 
 
child.  Although continuous sexual abuse of a child is a Class B Felony ordinarily 
subject to a statutory maximum sentence of twenty-five years imprisonment, under 
the terms of the plea agreement, Jones acknowledged that he was subject to enhanced 
sentencing under 11 Del. C. § 4205A1 because the victim was under the age of 
fourteen.2  In exchange for his guilty plea, the State agreed to dismiss the remaining 
five charges in the indictment.  Following a presentence investigation, the Superior 
Court sentenced Jones to fifty years of incarceration, suspended after forty years for 
decreasing levels of supervision.  Jones did not appeal his conviction or sentence. 
(3) 
In April 2022, Jones filed a motion for correction of illegal sentence, 
arguing that his sentence was illegal because it exceeded the statutory maximum 
sentence for a Class B Felony.  The Superior Court denied the motion, and we 
affirmed its denial on appeal.3  In October 2022, Jones filed another motion for 
correction of illegal sentence, arguing that his sentence is illegal because the conduct 
that formed the basis of his guilty plea to continuous sexual abuse of a child began 
before Section 4205A was amended to include continuous sexual abuse of a child 
(11 Del. C. § 776) as a predicate offense for enhanced sentencing.  The Superior 
 
1 11 Del. C. § 4205A(a) (“Notwithstanding any provision of this chapter or any other laws to the 
contrary, a defendant convicted of any crime set forth in § 771(a)(2), § 772, § 773, § 776, § 777, 
§ 777A, § 778(1) or (2) of this title shall be sentenced to not less than 25 years up to life 
imprisonment to be served at Level V if: … (2) The victim of the instant offense is a child less 
than 14 years of age.”) (2016). 
2 Jones also acknowledged on the Truth-in-Sentencing Guilty Plea Form that he faced a minimum 
sentence of twenty-five years up to life imprisonment. 
3 Jones v. State, 2022 WL 3206092 (Del. Aug. 8, 2022). 
3 
 
Court denied Jones’s motion on the basis that his twenty-five-year prison sentence 
was legally imposed under either Section 4205A or Section 776.  This appeal 
followed.  
(4) 
We review the denial of a motion for correction of illegal sentence for 
abuse of discretion.4  To the extent a claim involves a question of law, we review the 
claim de novo.5  A motion to correct an illegal sentence may be filed at any time.6  
A sentence is illegal if it exceeds statutory limits, violates the Double Jeopardy 
Clause, 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.7  
(5) 
In his opening brief on appeal, Jones argues that the Superior Court 
erred by denying his motion for correction of illegal sentence because the Superior 
Court analyzed his motion under the mistaken belief that Jones is serving a twenty-
five-year sentence.  Although Jones is correct that the Superior Court appears to have 
been under the impression that Jones is serving a twenty-five-year sentence, we 
nonetheless affirm the Superior Court’s judgment on the independent and alternative 
 
4 Fountain v. State, 2014 WL 4102069, at *1 (Del. Aug. 19, 2014). 
5 Id. 
6 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(a). 
7 Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998). 
4 
 
basis that Jones’s forty-year-prison-sentence was legally imposed under Section 
4205A.8   
(6) 
A person is guilty of continuous sexual abuse of a child if he either 
resides with or has recurring access to a child under the age of eighteen and he 
intentionally engages in three or more acts of sexual conduct with the child over a 
period of time of at least three months.9  Here, Jones was indicted for sexually 
abusing his biological daughter (with whom he had regular weekend visitation) over 
a period of twenty-two months, including a sixteen-month period of time following 
the August 6, 2016 amendment to Section 4205A that added continuous sexual abuse 
of a child as a predicate offense for enhanced sentencing.  That is to say, even setting 
aside the fact that Jones is bound by the representations he made on the TIS Guilty 
Plea Form and in open court during the guilty plea colloquy10 (namely, that he was 
subject to enhanced sentencing under Section 4205A), the Superior Court’s 
imposition of a forty-year prison sentence under Section 4205A was legal.  
Accordingly, we affirm the Superior Court’s judgment. 
 
8 See Unitrin, Inc. v. American Gen. Corp., 651 A.2d 1361, 1390 (Del. 1995) (noting that the 
Delaware Supreme Court may affirm a trial court’s judgment on the basis of a different rationale 
than that articulated by the trial court). 
9 11 Del. C. § 776. 
10 Somerville v. State, 703 A. 629, 632 (Del. 1997) (“In the absence of clear and convincing 
evidence to the contrary, [a defendant] is bound by his answers on the Truth-in-Sentencing Guilty 
Plea Form and by his sworn testimony prior to the [court’s] acceptance of the guilty plea.”). 
5 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm be 
GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court be AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
                  Chief Justice