Title: Bland v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
BENJAMIN BLAND, 
 
§ 
 
 
§ 
No. 221, 2006     
 
Defendant Below, 
§ 
 
Appellant, 
§ 
Court Below:  Superior Court of  
 
 
§ 
the State of Delaware in and for 
              v. 
 
§ 
New Castle County 
 
 
§ 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
§ 
Cr. I.D. Nos. 0505016150 
  
 
 
§ 
 
 
 0505014649 
 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
§ 
 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
 
 
 
Submitted: September 20, 2006 
 
 
Decided: 
October 17, 2006 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 17th day of October 2006, upon consideration of the briefs of the parties 
and the record in this case, it appears to the Court that: 
 
1. 
Benjamin Bland, defendant-below, appeals from a written sentencing 
order by the Superior Court, contending that the sentencing order should conform 
to the sentencing judge’s April 7, 2006 oral pronouncement.  Because the written 
sentencing order imposes a two-year minimum mandatory incarceration, and not 
the one-year minimum mandatory sentence as stated in the sentencing transcript 
and the relevant statute, we vacate the written sentencing order and remand this 
case to the Superior Court to correct the sentencing order consistent with the April 
7, 2006 oral sentence.   
 
2
 
2. 
Following a jury trial in the Superior Court in January 2006, Benjamin 
Bland was convicted of burglary second degree, terroristic threatening, offensive 
touching, criminal contempt, and two counts of criminal mischief.  Sentencing 
took place on April 7, 2006.  With respect to the burglary second degree offense, 
Bland was sentenced to five years in prison, suspended after 18 months, followed 
by three years at decreasing levels of supervision.  The sentencing transcript 
reflects the judge stating, “First year of this will be mandatory.”  In contrast, the 
written sentencing order imposes a two-year minimum mandatory term of 
incarceration for the burglary conviction.1   
 
3. 
In May 2006, Bland filed a pro se motion for a sentence modification 
that the Superior Court denied.  Bland’s attorney then filed this appeal, and the 
State’s answering brief concedes the appellant’s argument.   
 
4. 
Federal courts have consistently held that when there is a direct conflict 
between an unambiguous oral pronouncement of a sentence and the written 
judgment, the oral pronouncement controls.2   
                                          
 
1 The minimum mandatory sentence for a person convicted of burglary in the second degree is 
one year at Level V.  DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 825(b)(1) (2004). 
 
2 It is a “firmly established and settled principle of federal criminal law that an orally pronounced 
sentence controls over a judgment and commitment order when the two conflict.”  United States 
v. Chasmer, 952 F.2d 50, 52 (3d Cir. 1991) (quoting United States v. Villano, 816 F.2d 1448, 
1450 (10th Cir. 1987)).  See also United States v. Munoz-Dela Rosa, 495 F.2d 253 (9th Cir. 
1974) and United States v. Morse, 344 F.2d 27 (4th Cir. 1965) (holding that because oral 
pronouncement of sentence was unambiguous it controlled over written sentence).   
 
3
 
5. 
Although Delaware has not expressly adopted the federal rule, 
Delaware statutory and case law authorize sentence correction for errors resulting 
from “oversight or omission.”3  The Superior Court has amended sentencing orders 
to accurately reflect the intended sentence.4  The sentencing judge clearly intended 
to sentence Bland to one year minimum mandatory imprisonment for his burglary 
charge and the State concedes the need for the correction. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the written sentencing order is 
VACATED and the matter is REMANDED to the Superior Court for amendment 
consistent with the April 7, 2006 sentence.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs  
 
 
 
 
 
                       
 
       Justice  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                          
 
3 See Guyer v. State, 453 A.2d 462, 464 (Del. 1982) and SUPER. CT. CRIM. R. 36,  “Clerical  
mistakes in judgments, orders or other parts of the record and errors in the record arising from 
oversight or omission may be corrected by the Court at any time and after such notice, if any, as 
the Court orders.” 
 
4 See Elliott v. State, 2003 WL 23538038 at *1 (Del. June 3, 2003) (Superior Court corrected 
sentencing order to include the Key Program as a condition imposed by the original sentence) 
and Guyer v. State, 453 A.2d 462 (trial court amended sentence after determining that the “single 
theft rule” merged the charges and affected sentencing).