Title: St. Louis v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JAMES ST. LOUIS, 
 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 294, 2007 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr. ID 0009015005 
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: July 18, 2007 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: September 28, 2007 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and BERGER, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
This 28th day of September 2007, upon consideration of the 
appellant’s opening brief, the State’s motion to affirm, and the record below, 
it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, James St. Louis, filed this appeal from the 
Superior Court’s order denying his motion for correction of illegal sentence.  
St. Louis sought relief on the ground that he had not been provided with a 
copy of the presentence investigation report prior to his criminal sentencing 
in 2001. The State has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment on the 
ground that it is manifest on the face of St. Louis’s opening brief that the 
appeal is without merit.  We agree and affirm.   
 
2
(2) 
The record reflects that a Superior Court jury convicted St. 
Louis in May 2001 of Rape in the First Degree and Continuous Sexual 
Abuse of a Child.  The Superior Court sentenced him in June 2001 to a total 
period of forty years incarceration to be suspended after twenty-two years 
for decreasing levels of supervision.  This Court affirmed his convictions 
and sentences on direct appeal.1  Thereafter, St. Louis filed unsuccessful 
petitions seeking state postconviction relief2 and federal habeas corpus 
relief.3   
(3) 
In May 2007, St. Louis filed a motion for correction of an 
illegal sentence under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a).  St. Louis argued 
that his sentence was illegal because he did not have the opportunity to 
review the presentence investigation report (PSI) prior to his sentencing.  
The Superior Court denied the motion on the ground that St. Louis had the 
opportunity to review the PSI and because his sentence was otherwise within 
the statutory range of authorized sentences.  This appeal ensued. 
 
(4) 
After careful consideration of the parties’ respective positions, 
we find it manifest that the judgment of the Superior Court should be 
affirmed.  Although captioned as a motion for correction of an illegal 
                                          
 
1 St. Louis v. State, 2002 WL 1160979 (Del. May 24, 2002). 
2 St. Louis v. State, 2004 WL 2153645 (Del. Super. Sept. 22, 2004), aff’d, 2005 WL 
528675 (Del. Mar. 1, 2005). 
3 St. Louis v. Carroll, 429 F. Supp.2d 701 (D. Del. 2006). 
 
3
sentence, St. Louis, in fact, is arguing that his sentence was imposed in an 
illegal manner because he allegedly was not provided with a copy of the PSI 
prior to sentencing.    
(5) 
The function of a Rule 35(a) motion is very narrow.4  Rule 
35(a) only reaches challenges to the sentence itself and may not be used to 
re-examine errors occurring in the proceedings prior to the imposition of 
sentence.5  In this case, St. Louis’ sentence was within the statutory range of 
authorized sentences for his convictions and therefore was not illegal.6  
Moreover, his motion, which sought the correction of a sentence imposed in 
an allegedly illegal manner, was subject to the ninety-day limitation period 
of Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b) and thus was untimely.7  
Accordingly, we find no error in the Superior Court’s denial of St. Louis’ 
motion for correction of sentence.   
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED.   
BY THE COURT: 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
Justice 
 
                                          
 
4 Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998). 
5 Id.  
6 Id.. 
7 See Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(a).