Title: Stanley v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
GARY V. STANLEY, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 456, 2023 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID No. 1812010757 (K) 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: December 18, 2023 
Decided: 
January 30, 2024 
 
Before TRAYNOR, LEGROW, and GRIFFITHS, Justices.  
 
 
ORDER 
 
After consideration of the opening brief, the motion to affirm, and the record 
on appeal, it appears to the Court that:   
(1) 
The appellant, Gary V. Stanley, filed this appeal from a Superior Court 
order denying his motion for correction of illegal sentence.  The State of Delaware 
has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment on the basis that it is manifest 
on the face of Stanley’s opening brief that the appeal is without merit.  We agree and 
affirm. 
(2) 
In March 2019, a grand jury indicted Stanley for multiple drug and 
weapon offenses.  On September 10, 2019, Stanley pleaded guilty to drug dealing, 
carrying a concealed deadly weapon (“CCDW”), and possession of firearm 
 
2 
ammunition by a person prohibited (“PABPP”).  As part of the plea agreement, the 
parties agreed to recommend a sentence with six years of unsuspended Level V time 
followed by probation with GPS monitoring.  The Superior Court conducted a plea 
colloquy with Stanley and accepted his guilty plea. 
(3) 
On November 27, 2019, the Superior Court sentenced Stanley as 
follows: (i) for CCDW, eight years of Level V incarceration, suspended after five 
years for eighteen months of Level III GPS; (ii) for drug dealing, fifteen years of 
Level V incarceration, suspended after one year for one year of Level IV Work 
Release or Home Confinement, followed by eighteen months of Level III GPS; and 
(iii) for PABPP, eight years of Level V incarceration, suspended for eighteen months 
of Level III GPS.  Stanley did not appeal the Superior Court’s judgment, but did file 
an unsuccessful motion for postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 
61.1 
(4) 
On April 10, 2023, Stanley filed a motion for review of sentence that 
sought reduction of the Level V portion of his sentence and modification of the Level 
IV portion of his sentence.  The Superior Court denied the motion, finding the 
motion was time-barred and the sentence was imposed under a plea agreement with 
a jointly recommended sentence.  On November 8, 2023, Stanley filed a motion for 
 
1 Stanley v. State, 2022 WL 518460 (Del. Feb. 21, 2022) (affirming the Superior Court’s denial of 
Stanley’s Rule 61 motion). 
 
3 
correction of illegal sentence under Rule 35(a).  The Superior Court denied the 
motion, finding the sentence was imposed pursuant to a plea agreement and was 
appropriate for all of the reasons stated at sentencing.  This appeal followed.   
(5) 
This Court reviews the denial of a motion for correction of illegal 
sentence for abuse of discretion.2  We review questions of law de novo.3  Rule 35(a) 
permits the Superior Court to correct an illegal sentence “at any time.”4  A sentence 
is illegal if it exceeds 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.5   
(6) 
As he did below, Stanley argues in his opening brief that his CCDW 
sentence is illegal because the sentencing order and Department of Correction 
records are internally contradictory.  He is mistaken.  In the sentencing order, the 
CCDW sentence is eight years of Level V incarceration, suspended after five years 
for eighteen months of Level III GPS.  In the Department of Correction records 
Stanley provides, the CCDW sentence is described as eight years of Level V 
incarceration, suspended after five years at Level V to be followed by “GPS 
 
2 Fountain v. State, 100 A.3d 1021, 2014 WL 4102069, at *1 (Del. Aug. 19, 2014) (TABLE). 
3 Id. 
4 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(a). 
5 Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998). 
 
4 
[eighteen] months at Level [III].”6  There is no internal contradiction.  Stanley’s 
argument otherwise relies on a condition in the sentencing order that requires GPS 
monitoring during Home Confinement, but that reliance is misplaced.  That 
condition is part of Stanley’s drug dealing sentence and only applies if he is placed 
on Level IV Home Confinement for that sentence instead of Level IV Work Release.   
(7) 
Stanley also requests removal of the GPS monitoring condition.  The 
Superior Court may reduce the “term or conditions of partial confinement or 
probation, at any time,” but will not consider repetitive requests for sentence 
reduction.7  Stanley has not shown that the Superior Court abused its discretion in 
denying his motion based on the parties’ plea agreement and the court’s conclusion 
that the sentence remained appropriate.    
(8) 
Finally, although Stanley has not raised this issue, his eighteen-month 
probation sentence for PABPP exceeds the one-year statutory limit for felonies that 
are neither violent nor drug-related.8  The PABPP probation sentence therefore must 
be corrected.     
 
 
 
6 App. to Opening Br., Ex. 4 (Offender Status Sheet). 
7 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b). 
8 11 Del. C. § 4333(b)(3) (providing that the period of probation for a crime that is not designated 
a violent felony under § 4201(c) or set forth in Title 16 shall not be more than one year).  
 
5 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is 
GRANTED, the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED, and Stanley’s 
sentence is REMANDED for correction of the probation sentence imposed for his 
PABPP conviction.  Jurisdiction is not retained.   
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Abigail M. LeGrow 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice