Title: Johnson v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DAMMEYIN A. JOHNSON, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 190, 2005 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 9709009665 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: May 31, 2005 
  Decided: July 19, 2005 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 19th day of July 2005, upon consideration of the appellant's 
opening brief,1 the State’s motion to affirm, and the record below, it appears 
to the Court that: 
(1) 
Johnson filed this appeal from the Superior Court’s order, dated 
April 27, 2005, denying his motion for correction of an illegal sentence.  The 
State has filed a motion to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment on the 
                                                 
1 On May 6, 2005, the Court received a document entitled “Notice of Motion for 
an Order and Relief.”  At the time, Johnson did not have an appeal pending before this 
Court.  The Clerk of the Court therefore treated Johnson’s motion as a notice of appeal.  
Moreover, because the “motion” contained substantive arguments, supported by case law, 
and requested immediate resentencing, the “motion” was be deemed his opening brief on 
appeal. 
 
 
-2-
ground that it is manifest on the face of Johnson’s opening brief that the 
appeal is without merit.  We agree and affirm. 
(2) 
The record reflects that Johnson was indicted in October 1997 
on first degree unlawful sexual intercourse and other related charges.  The 
jury acquitted Johnson of first degree unlawful sexual intercourse but 
convicted him of the lesser included offense of second degree unlawful 
sexual intercourse as well as other charges.  His convictions were affirmed 
on direct appeal.2  Thereafter, Johnson filed numerous motions seeking to 
modify or correct his sentence.   
(3) 
In his latest motion, Johnson argued that the jury only convicted 
him of third degree unlawful sexual intercourse, but the Superior Court 
illegally sentenced him on a greater charge of second degree unlawful sexual 
intercourse.  In support of his contention, Johnson attached a copy of the 
transcript from the reading of the jury verdict, which reflects, in part: 
 
The Prothonotary: As to the lesser-included offense of Unlawful 
Intercourse in the Third Degree; guilty or not guilty? 
 
The Forelady: 
Guilty. 
… 
 
The Prothonotary: Members of the Jury, hearken to the verdict as the 
Court has recorded it, your Foreperson says that you find the defendant at 
the bar, Dammeyin Johnson, not guilty of Unlawful Intercourse First 
Degree; guilty of Unlawful Intercourse in the Third Degree…. 
                                                 
2 Johnson v. State, 753 A.2d 438 (Del. 2000). 
 
 
-3-
 
(4) 
As the Superior Court pointed out, however, the jury was not 
instructed on the charge of unlawful sexual intercourse in the third degree.  
The verdict sheet, the jury instructions, and the docket all reflect that the 
only lesser included offense to the original charge of first degree unlawful 
sexual intercourse on which the jury was instructed was second degree 
unlawful sexual intercourse.  Thus, the jury only had three options with 
respect to the charge of first degree unlawful sexual intercourse: guilty as 
charged, guilty of the lesser included offense of second degree unlawful 
sexual intercourse, or not guilty.  In light of the record, we find no error in 
the Superior Court’s conclusion that the reference in the transcript to third 
degree unlawful sexual intercourse was either an error in transcription or 
simply a misstatement by the court clerk in reading the verdict. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State's motion to 
affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.   
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
Chief Justice