Title: Washington v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
COREY WASHINGTON, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 196, 2022 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§ Cr. ID No. 0004018575A (K) 
§  
 
§  
 
Submitted: August 17, 2022 
Decided: 
September 14, 2022 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 
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, Corey Washington, filed this appeal from a Superior 
Court order denying his motion for correction of sentence.  The State of Delaware 
has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment on the ground that it is manifest 
on the face of Washington’s opening brief that the appeal is without merit.  We agree 
and affirm. 
(2) 
The record reflects that, in February 2001, a Superior Court jury found 
Washington guilty of one count of possession of cocaine with intent to deliver, one 
count of maintaining a vehicle, two counts of possession of cocaine within 1000 feet 
 
2
of a school, one court of resisting arrest, one count of driving with suspended or 
revoked license, and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia.  After granting 
the State’s petition to declare Washington an habitual offender, the Superior Court 
sentenced Washington, effective April 27, 2000, to life imprisonment plus nine 
years.   This Court affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment on direct appeal.1  In 
2007, this Court affirmed the Superior Court’s denial of Washington’s second 
motion for postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.2 
(3) 
In October 2017, the Superior Court granted the request of 
Washington’s counsel for a certificate of eligibility to file a petition to modify 
Washington’s habitual offender sentence under 11 Del. C. § 4214(f).  After briefing 
on the petition to modify, the Superior Court granted the petition on December 11, 
2018.  The Superior Court reduced Washington’s life imprisonment sentence for 
possession of cocaine with intent to deliver to thirty-five years of Level V 
incarceration suspended after fifteen years for decreasing levels of supervision.  The 
remainder of Washington’s sentence was unchanged.  Washington subsequently 
filed an unsuccessful motion to further modify his sentence. 
(4) 
On May 4, 2022, Washington filed a motion for correction of sentence.  
The Superior Court denied the motion, finding it repetitive, the sentence appropriate 
 
1 Washington v. State, 2002 WL 440253 (Del. Mar. 18, 2002). 
2 Washington v. State, 2007 WL 4110636 (Del. Nov. 20, 2007). 
 
3
for the reasons stated at sentencing, and already addressed by the previous petition 
to modify under Section 4214(f).  This appeal followed. 
(5) 
This Court reviews the denial of a motion for correction of illegal 
sentence for abuse of discretion.3  We review questions of law de novo.4  A sentence 
is illegal if it exceeds statutory limits, violates double 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  Although the Superior 
Court appeared to treat Washington’s motion as a motion for reduction of sentence 
under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b) instead of a motion for correction of 
illegal sentence under  Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a), we affirm the Superior 
Court’s denial of the motion on the alternative grounds that his sentences are not 
illegal.6 
(6) 
As he did below, Washington argues in his opening brief that his 
sentences for possession of cocaine with intent to deliver (thirty-five years of Level 
V incarceration suspended after fifteen years) and two counts of possession within 
 
3 Fountain v. State, 2014 WL 4102069, at *1 (Del. Aug. 19, 2014). 
4 Id. 
5 Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998). 
6 See Unitrin, Inc. v. Am. Gen. Corp., 651 A.2d 1361, 1390 (Del. 1995) (stating that this Court 
may affirm a trial court's decision “on the basis of a different rationale than that which was 
articulated by the trial court”). 
 
4
1000 feet of a school illegal (two years of Level V incarceration for each count) are 
illegal because the Ned Carpenter Act7 eliminated or modified those offenses in 
2011.  This argument is without merit.  As the State emphasizes in its motion to 
affirm, the Ned Carpenter Act “did not apply retroactively to any violation that 
occurred prior to September 1, 2011.”8  Washington’s sentences for possession of 
cocaine with intent to deliver and possession within 1000 feet of a school are thus 
not illegal.  
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/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
        Chief Justice 
 
 
7 78 Del. Laws ch. 13 (2011). 
8 Ayala v. State, 204 A.3d 829, 838-39 (Del. Feb. 11, 2019).  See also 78 Del. Laws, c. 13 § 66; 
16 Del. C. § 4791.