Title: Shah v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
KUSHAL SHAH, f/k/a GERRON 
LINDSEY, 
 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 334, 2011 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 0002019767 
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: July 27, 2011 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: September 23, 2011 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 23rd day of September 2011, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief and the State’s motion to affirm, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The appellant, Kushal Shah, filed this appeal from the Superior 
Court’s denial of his motion for correction of sentence.  The State has filed a 
motion to affirm the judgment below on the ground that it is manifest on the face 
of Shah’s opening brief that the appeal is without merit.  We agree and affirm. 
 
(2) 
The record reflects that Shah pled guilty but mentally ill to one count 
of first degree murder in April 2002.  In exchange for his guilty plea, the State 
agreed not to seek the death penalty and also dismissed other eleven criminal 
charges pending against Shah.  After the Superior Court denied his motion to 
2 
 
withdraw his guilty plea, Shah was sentenced to life imprisonment.  Since that 
time, Shah has filed numerous unsuccessful petitions seeking postconviction and 
habeas corpus relief.  In his latest petition, Shah sought correction of his sentence 
on the ground that, as a result of his guilty but mentally ill plea, he should be 
housed at the Delaware Psychiatric Center and not in prison.  The Superior Court 
denied Shah’s motion for correction of sentence on the ground that the issue 
already had been resolved against Shah in a prior habeas corpus petition and in his 
sixth motion for postconviction relief.1 
(3) 
In his opening brief on appeal, Shah continues to assert that his 
sentence is illegal because he should be housed at the Delaware Psychiatric Center 
and not at the Vaughn Correctional Center.  Relief under Rule 35(a), however, is 
available only “when the sentence imposed exceeds the statutorily-authorized 
limits, [or] violates the Double Jeopardy Clause.”2  Section 408(b) of Title 11 
provides, among other things, that a defendant who pleads guilty but mentally ill 
“may have any sentence imposed which may lawfully be imposed upon any 
defendant for the same offense.”3  The Superior Court in this case legally 
sentenced Shah to life imprisonment for intentional murder.4  The substance of 
Shah’s motion does not allege any illegality with respect to the terms of his 
sentence.  His claim is simply that the Department of Correction erred in not 
                                                 
1 See Shah v. State, 2011 WL 136666 (Del. Apr. 11, 2011) (affirming the Superior Court’s denial 
of Shah’s sixth petition for postconviction relief). 
2 Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998). 
3 DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 408(b) (2007). 
4 DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 4209(a) (2007). 
3 
 
housing him at the Delaware Psychiatric Center when he was first remanded to 
DOC custody.  Such a claim against the DOC is not an appropriate basis for relief 
under the narrow function of Rule 35(a).5  Moreover, the Superior Court previously 
rejected Shah’s argument in denying both habeas corpus and postconviction relief.  
Absent evidence of clear error or an important change of circumstance, that former 
ruling is the law of the case and will not be altered.6 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
          Justice 
                                                 
5 Id. 
6 Bailey v. State, 521 A.2d 1069, 1093 (Del. 1987).