Title: Harmon v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
AVERY D. HARMON, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 67, 2007 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0506001214 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: April 9, 2007 
 
 
 
 
Decided: May 24, 2007 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 24th day of May 2007, 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, Avery D. Harmon, filed an appeal 
from the Superior Court’s January 16, 2007 order denying his motion for 
correction of an illegal sentence pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 
35(a).  The plaintiff-appellee, the State of Delaware, has moved to affirm the 
 
2
judgment of the Superior Court on the 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 August 2005, Harmon was indicted on charges of Robbery in 
the First Degree, Aggravated Menacing, Possession of a Firearm During the 
Commission of a Felony, Possession of a Deadly Weapon By a Person 
Prohibited, Wearing a Disguise During the Commission of a Felony, and 
Conspiracy in the Second Degree.  In February 2006, Harmon pleaded guilty 
to Robbery in the First Degree, Possession of a Firearm During the 
Commission of a Felony, and Conspiracy in the Second Degree.  He was 
sentenced on the robbery conviction to ten years at Level V, to be suspended 
after three years at Level V for four years at Level III.  On the weapon 
conviction, he was sentenced to five years at Level V.  On the conspiracy 
conviction, he was sentenced to two years at Level V, to be suspended for 
one year at Level III.  
 
(3) 
In this appeal, Harmon claims that his sentence for Robbery in 
the First Degree is illegal.  According to Harmon, the charge to which he 
pleaded guilty should have been reduced to Robbery in the Second Degree, a 
lesser-included offense of Robbery in the First Degree.  Alternatively, 
                                                 
1 Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
 
3
Harmon appears to argue that he was not aware he was pleading guilty to 
Robbery in the First Degree. 
 
(4) 
Rule 35(a) permits the Superior Court to correct an illegal 
sentence “at any time.”  Relief under Rule 35(a) is available when the 
sentence imposed exceeds the statutorily authorized 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.2 
 
(5) 
While Harmon claims that his sentence is illegal, the record 
does not reflect that his sentence exceeds the statutorily authorized limits, 
violates double jeopardy, is ambiguous, is internally contradictory, omits a 
required term, is uncertain as to its substance, or is unauthorized by the 
judgment of conviction.  Both the plea agreement and the guilty plea form 
signed by Harmon and his counsel reflect that he entered a guilty plea to the 
charge of Robbery in the First Degree.  In the absence of any evidence 
supporting Harmon’s claim of an illegal sentence, the Superior Court 
properly denied his Rule 35(a) motion. 
                                                 
2 Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998). 
 
4
 
(6) 
It is manifest on the face of Harmon’s opening brief that this 
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 of Delaware’s motion to affirm is GRANTED.  
The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
          Justice