Title: Austin v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JOHN W. AUSTIN, 
 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 185, 2016 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID 1102020008 
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: June 1, 2016 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
August 1, 2016 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND and SEITZ, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 1st day of August 2016, upon 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, John Austin, filed this appeal from a Superior Court 
order, docketed March 11, 2016, denying his motion for correction of sentence.  
The State has filed a motion to affirm the judgment below on the ground that it is 
manifest on the face of Austin‟s opening brief that his appeal is without merit.  We 
agree and affirm. 
(2) 
In September 2011, a Superior Court jury convicted Austin of 
Robbery in the First Degree and Possession of a Deadly Weapon During the 
 
2 
Commission of a Felony (“PDWCF”).  The Superior Court sentenced him to a total 
period of eighteen years at Level V incarceration, to be suspended after serving 
eight years in prison for decreasing levels of supervision.  This Court affirmed 
Austin‟s convictions and sentence on direct appeal.1   
(3) 
Since that time, Austin has filed unsuccessfully at least seven motions 
in the Superior Court seeking modification or correction of his sentence.  Austin 
now appeals the Superior Court‟s order denying his latest motion for correction of 
sentence.  Austin‟s sole argument on appeal is that he could not be convicted or 
sentenced for PDWCF because the metal rod that he used to threaten the victim 
during the robbery was not a “deadly weapon.” 
(4) 
Even if we assume that Austin‟s claim was properly raised in a motion 
for correction of sentence and was not otherwise procedurally barred, it is clear 
that the Superior Court committed no error in denying his motion because there is 
no substantive merit to his claim that a two-foot long metal rod is not a deadly 
weapon.  Under 11 Del. C. § 222(5), a “deadly weapon” includes “any „dangerous 
instrument,‟ as defined in paragraph (4) of this section, which is used, or attempted 
to be used, to cause death or serious physical injury.”2  Section 222(4) defines 
“dangerous instrument” to include “any instrument, article or substance which, 
                                               
 
1 Austin v. State, 2012 WL 1952326 (Del. May 30, 2012). 
2 11 Del. C. § 222(5). 
 
3 
under the circumstances in which it is used, attempted to be used or threatened to 
be used, is readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury.”3  The two-
foot rod that Austin used to threaten the victim during the course of the robbery in 
this case constitutes a deadly weapon within the meaning of the statute.4 
 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT:  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice  
 
                                               
 
3 Id. § 222(4). 
4 Taylor v. State, 679 A.2d 449, 454 (Del. 1996) (“[T]he legislature no longer defines an item as 
a deadly weapon according to its common, every-day usage…but instead has made dispositive 
that item's potential for causing death or serious physical injury in the way it was actually used in 
the circumstances leading to the charge.”).