IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

)

v. ) Cr. ID No. 79800001DI

)

LAWRENCE B. DICKENS, )

)

Defendant. )

)

Submitted: December 21, 2023

Decided: January 11, 2024

COMMISSIONER’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THAT

DEFENDANT’S RULE 61 MOTION FOR POSTCONVICTION 

RELIEF SHOULD BE SUMMARILY DISMISSED

AND 

RELATED MOTIONS FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING, 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, DISCOVERY AND TRANSCRIPTS 

SHOULD BE DENIED

AND

MOTION FOR CORRECTION OF SENTENCE SHOULD BE 

DENIED

Abigail E. Rodgers, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Department of 

Justice, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for the State.

Lawrence B. Dickens, SBI No. 00124570, J.T.V.C.C. 1181 Paddock Road, 

Smyrna, DE 19977, pro se.

PARKER, Commissioner 
1

This 11

th day of January 2024, upon consideration of Defendant’s Rule 

61 motion for postconviction relief and Rule 35(a) motion for correction of 

illegal sentence, it appears to the Court as follows:

BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On February 20, 1980, after a 10-day trial, a Superior Court jury 

convicted Defendant Lawrence B. Dickens of Murder in the First Degree for 

the killing of Myrtis Handy. Dickens was also convicted of Attempted 

Murder in the First Degree for the shooting of Elmira Handy, First Degree 

Assault for the shooting of a bystander, and Possession of a Deadly Weapon 

during the Commission of a Felony. 

On the Murder in the First Degree conviction, Dickens was sentenced 

to life imprisonment, without the possibility of probation or parole or any 

other reduction.1 Dickens was sentenced to additional Level V time on the 

remaining convictions.2 

Following Dickens’ convictions and sentences, he filed a direct appeal. 

On November 3, 1981, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed his convictions 

and sentences.3 Thereafter, Dickens filed three Rule 61 motions, all of which 

1 D.I. 14.

2 D.I. 21.

3 Dickens v. State, 437 A.2d 159 (Del. 1981).
2

have been unsuccessful4. He has also filed an unsuccessful petition for federal 

habeas corpus relief.5

DICKENS’ PENDING MOTIONS

Dickens filed a Rule 61 motion, his fourth, seeking to vacate his 

Murder-in-the-First Degree sentence and conviction. Dickens also filed a 

Rule 35(a) motion for “correction of sentence.”

RULE 61 MOTION

Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(d)(2) requires all second or 

subsequent motions to be summarily dismissed unless the movant was 

convicted after a trial and the movant (i) pleads with particularity that new 

evidence exists to establish the movant’s actual innocence in fact; or (ii)

pleads with particularity that a new, retroactively applicable constitutional 

rule applies to the movant’s case and renders a conviction invalid.

4 First Rule 61 notion: State v. Dickens, 602 A.2d 95 (Del.Super. 1989), aff’d, 1990 WL 

43318 (Del. 1990).

Second Rule 61 motion: State v. Dickens, 1994 WL 145988 (Del.Super.), aff’d, 1994 WL 

466126 (Del.).

Third Rule 61 motion: Dickens v. State, 2003 WL 1922507 (Del.).

5 Dickens v. Deloy, et al., 2007 WL 4292115 (D.Del.).
3

Dickens contends that he has satisfied the pleading requirements of 

Rule 61(d)(2)(ii). Dickens claims that pending legislation, Delaware House 

Bill 70, 152nd General Assembly, 2023-2024, seeks to repeal 11 Del. C.

§4209, and when repealed, his sentence on his Murder-in-the-First-Degree 

conviction would be invalid and therefore his conviction would need to be 

vacated.

11 Del. C. §4209 provides that persons convicted of first-degree 

murder shall be sentenced to death or by imprisonment for the remainder of 

the person’s natural life without benefit of probation or parole or any other 

reduction.

Dickens is incorrect in his understanding of the pending legislation. 

The pending legislation does not seek to repeal 11 Del. C. §4209 in its 

entirety. It seeks to eliminate the death penalty as a possible sentence for firstdegree murder convictions. If the pending legislation is enacted and becomes 

law, every person convicted of first-degree murder shall be sentenced to 

“imprisonment for the remainder of the person’s natural life without benefit 

of probation or parole or any other reduction.”6 

The pending legislation, if signed into law, would have no effect on 

Dickens’ first-degree murder sentence. Dickens was already sentenced to life 

6 House Bill 70 , 152nd General Assembly, 2023-2024.
4

imprisonment without the benefit of probation or parole or any other reduction 

on his first-degree murder conviction. Dickens’ sentence would remain the 

same as previously imposed under the pending legislation, if passed and 

signed into law.

Dickens’ Rule 61 motion should be summarily dismissed since he 

cannot meet the threshold requirement of proceeding with this motion. 

Dickens has failed to plead with particularity that a new, retroactively 

applicable constitutional rule applied to his case and rendered his conviction 

invalid.

RELATED MOTIONS ARE DENIED

In accordance with the mandates of Rule 61, Dickens’ Rule 61 motion 

should be summarily dismissed as he failed to meet the pleading requirements 

for proceeding with the motion. As such, Dickens’ request for the 

appointment of counsel, evidentiary hearing, discovery and transcripts are 

likewise denied.

MOTION FOR CORRECTION OF SENTENCE

Dickens contends that his sentence on his first-degree murder 

conviction to life imprisonment “without the benefit of probation or parole or 

any other reduction” is illegal. He filed the subject Rule 35(a) seeking to 

correct this allegedly illegal sentence. Dickens seeks a modification of his 
5

sentence to remove the portion of his sentence that does not allow probation, 

parole or any other reduction to his life sentence.

11 Del. C. §4209(a) provides that persons convicted of first-degree 

murder shall be sentenced to death or to imprisonment for the remainder of 

the person’s natural life without benefit of probation or parole or any other 

reduction. 

Dickens was sentenced on his first-degree murder conviction to 

imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life without benefit of probation 

or parole or any other reduction.

There is no basis for a Rule 35(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence

when the sentence imposed is allowed by statute.7 Dickens’ sentence on his 

first-degree murder conviction to life imprisonment without the benefit of 

probation or parole or any other reduction was not only allowed to be imposed 

by statute, it was required to be imposed. Dickens’ motion for correction of 

illegal sentence is denied. 

7 See, Ward v. State, 567 A.2d 1296, 1297 (Del. 1989).
6

For the reasons discussed above, Dickens’ Rule 61 motion for 

postconviction relief should be summarily dismissed, the related relief 

requested should be denied, and his Rule 35(a) for correction of illegal 

sentence should be denied.

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.

Lynne. M. Parker 

Commissioner Lynne M. Parker

cc: Prothonotary