Title: Reese v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
MICHAEL P. REESE,                       
           
Defendant Below- 
Appellant,   
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
     
 
 
     
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
   No. 571, 2003 
 
   Court Below---Superior Court 
   of the State of Delaware, 
   in and for New Castle County  
   Cr. A. No. IN01-03-0955 
                      
 
Submitted:  April 2, 2004 
   Decided:  May 25, 2004    
 
Before HOLLAND, STEELE and JACOBS, Justices 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 25th day of May 2004, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal and 
the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Michael P. Reese, filed an appeal from the 
Superior Court’s November 12, 2003 order denying his motion for correction of 
sentence pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a).  We find no merit to the 
appeal.  Accordingly, we AFFIRM. 
 
(2) 
In November 2002, Reese pleaded guilty to Assault in the First 
Degree.  He was sentenced to 6 years incarceration at Level V, to be suspended 
after 4 years for probation.   
 
 
-2-
 
(3) 
In March 2001, Reese permitted an acquaintance named Michael Gast 
to stay in the back room of his auto body shop.  One evening, Gast and Reese had 
an argument concerning the proximity of a space heater to some flammable 
material.  During the argument, Reese threw a bottle containing acid at Gast and 
struck him several times with a baseball bat, but then also helped him wash the 
acid out of his eye.1   
 
(4) 
In this appeal, Reese claims that: a) the Presentence Report contained 
inaccurate information concerning his argument with Gast, which caused the 
Superior Court to impose a harsher sentence than it otherwise would have; b) he 
was not afforded an opportunity to rebut the inaccurate information; c) his attorney 
failed to present a rebuttal to the inaccurate information; and d) his sentencing 
hearing was unfair and in violation of his constitutional rights.   
 
(5) 
Rule 35(a) permits the Superior Court to correct an illegal sentence 
“at any time.”  The purpose of Rule 35(a) is to permit correction of an illegal 
sentence, not to re-examine errors occurring at the trial or other proceedings prior 
to the imposition of sentence.2  A sentence is illegal when it exceeds the 
statutorily-authorized limits or violates double jeopardy.3  A sentence also is illegal 
                                                 
1 This information was contained in the Presentence Report, which was reviewed by the Superior 
Court judge prior to sentencing. 
2 Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998). 
3 Id. 
 
 
-3-
if it 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 not authorized by the judgment of conviction.4 
 
(6) 
Reese does not claim that his sentence exceeds the statutorily-
authorized limits or violates double jeopardy.  Nor does he claim that his sentence 
is ambiguous or internally contradictory.  All of Reese’s claims are directed to 
alleged errors occurring at the sentencing hearing prior to the imposition of 
sentence.  As such, they are not properly raised in a motion to correct sentence 
pursuant to Rule 35(a).  
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
                                                 
4 Id.