Title: Glanding v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
HENRY W. GLANDING,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 515, 2010 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for Kent County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0105009486A 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
                                      Submitted: October 20, 2010 
Decided: December 17, 2010 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and JACOBS, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 17th day of December 2010, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief and the appellee’s motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 25(a), it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Henry W. Glanding, filed an appeal 
from the Superior Court’s July 22, 2010 order denying his motion for 
correction of illegal sentence pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 
35(a).  The plaintiff-appellee, the State of Delaware, has moved to affirm the 
 
2
Superior Court’s judgment on the ground that it is manifest on the face of 
the opening brief that the appeal is without merit.1  We agree and affirm. 
 
(2) 
The record reflects that, in March 2002, a Superior Court jury 
found Glanding guilty of 15 counts of Possession of a Deadly Weapon By a 
Person Prohibited.  He was sentenced to a total of 30 years at Level V, to be 
suspended after 15 years followed by 9 years of probation.  This Court 
affirmed Glanding’s convictions on direct appeal.2  Thereafter, Glanding 
filed a Rule 61 motion for postconviction relief.  This Court affirmed the 
Superior Court’s denial of the motion.3   
 
(3) 
In this appeal from the Superior Court’s denial of his Rule 35(a) 
motion, Glanding claims that his convictions of 15 separate counts of 
Possession of a Deadly By a Person Prohibited violate the constitutional 
protection against double jeopardy and the multiplicity doctrine. 
 
(4) 
A defendant may seek to correct an illegal sentence under Rule 
35(a) only under a limited set of circumstances:  a) if the sentence exceeds 
the statutorily-authorized limits; b) if the sentence violates double jeopardy; 
c) if the sentence is internally contradictory or ambiguous with respect to a 
                                                 
1 Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
2 Glanding v. State, Del. Supr., No. 236, 2002, Holland, J. (Dec. 13, 2002).  
3 Glanding v. State, Del. Supr., No. 631, 2005, Steele, C.J. (May 16, 2006). 
 
3
material provision; or d) if the sentence omits a statutorily-required term.4  
The purpose of a motion under Rule 35(a) is not to attack the legality of a 
defendant’s conviction or to raise allegations of error in the proceedings 
leading to the judgment of conviction.5 
 
(5) 
A conviction of Possession of a Deadly Weapon By a Person 
Prohibited requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the following 
elements: a) the defendant knew the location of the weapon; b) he had the 
ability to exercise dominion and control over the weapon; and c) he intended 
to guide the destiny of the weapon.6  The record reflects that the evidence 
presented by the State at Glanding’s trial was sufficient to establish all three 
required elements with respect to each of the 15 weapons found in 
Glanding’s truck and in his home.7  As for Glanding’s claims of 
constitutional violations, this Court has repeatedly held that a defendant may 
be convicted of multiple deadly weapon or firearm possession charges when 
more than one weapon is present8 and that neither double jeopardy nor the 
                                                 
4 Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998). 
5 Id. 
6 Lecates v. State, 987 A.2d  413, 426 (Del. 2009). 
7 Id. 
8 Nance v. State, 903 A.2d 283, 286-88 (Del. 2006). 
 
4
multiplicity doctrine is implicated.9  As such, there is no merit to Glanding’s 
claim that his sentences are illegal. 
 
(6) 
It is manifest on the face of the opening brief that this appeal is 
without merit because the issues presented on appeal are controlled by 
settled Delaware law and, to the extent that judicial discretion is implicated, 
there was no abuse of discretion. 
 
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 
 
 
                                                 
9 Spencer v. State, 868 A.2d 821, 822-25 (Del. 2005) (The double jeopardy clause 
protects against successive prosecutions for the same crime, multiple charges under 
separate statutes requiring proof of the same facts, and splitting a single offense into 
multiple charges.  This latter prohibition is commonly referred to as the “multiplicity 
doctrine.”)