Title: Marvel v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
LARRY MARVEL, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§    No. 55, 2019 
§ 
§    Court Below—Superior Court 
§    of the State of Delaware 
§   
§    Cr. ID No. 0510007925 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:  February 28, 2019 
 
 
 
 
      Decided:  April 2, 2019 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VAUGHN and SEITZ, Justices. 
 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
Upon consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the appellee’s motion to 
affirm, and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Larry D. Marvel, filed this appeal from the Superior 
Court’s denial of his motion for correction of illegal sentence.  The State has moved 
to affirm the judgment below on the ground that it is manifest in the face of Marvel’s 
opening brief that his appeal is without merit.  We agree and affirm. 
(2) 
In 2006, a Superior Court jury found Marvel guilty of Criminal 
Solicitation in the Second Degree and Conspiracy in the Second Degree.  The 
Superior Court granted the State’s petition to declare Marvel a habitual offender 
under 11 Del. C. § 4214(a).  The Superior Court sentenced Marvel as follows: (i) for 
2 
 
Criminal Solicitation in the Second Degree, as a habitual offender under § 4214(a), 
to life imprisonment; and (ii) for Conspiracy in the Second Degree, to two years of 
Level V incarceration.  The Supreme Court affirmed Marvel’s convictions on direct 
appeal in 2007.1  Since then, Marvel has filed multiple motions for postconviction 
relief or for correction or modification of his sentence, including one in which he 
argued that his sentences violated double jeopardy principles.2   
(3) 
In October 2018, Marvel filed a motion for correction of illegal 
sentence under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a).  Marvel again argued that his 
sentences for Criminal Solicitation in the Second Degree and Conspiracy in the 
Second Degree violate double jeopardy principles.  The Superior Court denied 
Marvel’s motion for correction of sentence on the basis that the issues set forth in 
his motion had already been litigated and decided.  This appeal followed.     
(4) 
We review the denial of a motion for correction of sentence for abuse 
of discretion.3  To the extent the claim involves a question of law, we review the 
claim de novo.4  A sentence is illegal if it exceeds statutory limits, violates double 
                                                 
1 Marvel v. State, 2007 WL 2713271 (Del. Sept. 18, 2007). 
2 See Marvel v. State, 2018 WL 2437235 (Del. May 30, 2018) (affirming the Superior Court’s 
denial of Marvel’s motion for correction of illegal sentence because Marvel’s sentences did not 
violate double jeopardy).  See also, e.g., Marvel v. State, 2014 WL 2949362 (Del. June 26, 2014) 
(affirming the Superior Court’s denial of Marvel’s fourth motion for postconviction relief); Marvel 
v. State, 2010 WL 3636193 (Del. Sept. 20, 2010) (affirming the Superior Court’s denial of 
Marvel’s motion for correction of illegal sentence); Marvel v. State, 2008 WL 4151830 (Del. Sept. 
10, 2008) (affirming the Superior Court’s denial of Marvel’s first motion for postconviction relief). 
3 Fountain v. State, 2014 WL 4102069, at *1 (Del. Aug. 19, 2014). 
4 Id. 
3 
 
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  As he did below, Marvel argues that his sentences for Criminal 
Solicitation and Conspiracy in the Second Degree violate double jeopardy.    
(5) 
The Superior Court did not err in denying Marvel’s motion for 
correction of sentence.  As the Superior Court recognized, Marvel’s arguments have 
already been considered, and the Superior Court and this Court have held that his 
sentences do not violate double jeopardy.  Marvel contends that he is arguing for the 
first time that 11 Del. C. § 206(b)(3) prohibits his being sentenced for both Criminal 
Solicitation in the Second Degree and Conspiracy in the Second Degree.6  But in 
fact, he previously argued that Section 206(b)(3) barred his sentences for both 
offenses.7  Section 206 “is essentially Delaware’s codification of the test laid out by 
the United States Supreme Court in Blockburger v. United States to determine 
whether two offenses are the same for double jeopardy purposes.”8  The Superior 
                                                 
5 Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998). 
6 11 Del. C. § 206(b)(3) provides that an offense is a lesser-included offense of another if “[it] 
involves the same result but differs from the offense charged only in the respect that a less serious 
injury or risk of injury to the same person, property or public interest or a lesser kind of culpability 
suffices to establish its commission.” 
7 See Marvel v. State, No. 121, 2018, Docket Entry No. 11, at 17-18 (filed Apr. 4, 2018). 
8 Mills v. State, 2019 WL 179177, at *3 (Del. Jan. 14, 2019) (citing Blockburger, 284 U.S. 299 
(1932)). 
4 
 
Court and this Court have already determined that Marvel’s sentences do not violate 
double jeopardy.9 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Affirm is 
GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/  James T. Vaughn, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
                                                 
9 See Brittingham, 705 A.2d at 579 (“The ‘law of the case’ doctrine bars relitigation, under Rule 
35(a), of an ‘illegal sentence’ where that issue has been previously decided by this Court.”).