IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ERNEST LAKE,Defendant BelowAppellant,

v. STATE OF DELAWARE,Plaintiff BelowAppellee. § § No. 571, 2013 § § § Court Below—Superior Court § of the State of Delaware, § in and for Sussex County § Cr. ID Nos. 0404003269, § 0611008754, 0702021759 § 0803023537, 0808020260 § and 0812001998 Submitted: May 2, 2014 Decided: July 9, 2014 Before STRINE , Chief Justice, BERGER , and RIDGELY , Justices. O R D E R This 9 th day of July 2014, upon considerati on of the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal, it app ears to the Court that: (1) The defendant-appellant, Ernest Lake, filed this appeal from the Superior Court’s denial of his motion fo r correction of illegal sentence. We find no merit to the appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the Superior Court’s judgment. (2) The record reflects that a Supe rior Court jury convicted Lake in March 2009 of one count of Criminal Solicita tion in the First Degree. On April 3, 2009, the Superior Court sent enced Lake to five year s at Level V incarceration (with credit for 118 days previously served ), to be suspended after serving four2 years in prison for one year at Level III probation. 1 As a result of this criminal conviction, the Superior Court also fo und Lake in violation of probationary sentences associated with seven prior c onvictions. The Superior Court entered a separate VOP sentencing orde r on April 3, 2009, which se ntenced Lake to a total period of six years and eight months at Level V incarceration, to be suspended after serving four years and ten months in prison for a period of probation. Lake did not appeal from his VOP sentence. Since that time, Lake has filed unsuccessful motions seeking modification of his sentence and postconviction relief. 2 (3) In May 2013, Lake filed a motio n for correction of illegal sentence under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a), 3 raising two arguments. First, he argued that the Level V portion of the two sentencing orders dated April 3, 2009 were intended to run concurrently; theref ore, his release da te was October 25, 2013. Lake also argued that the Apr il 3, 2009 VOP sentencing order was illegal because he had completed his probationary sentences before he was charged with

1 Lake filed a direct appeal from this conviction and sentence but later voluntarily dismissed the appeal. See Lake v. State , Del. Supr. No. 205, 2009 (voluntarily dismissed on Aug. 18, 2009). 2 See, e.g., Lake v. State , 2010 WL 3463392 (Del. Sept. 3, 2010) (a ffirming the Superior Court’s denial of Lake’s first mo tion for postconviction relief). 3 Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a) states, “T he court may correct an illegal sentence at any time and may correct a sentence imposed in an il legal manner within the time provided herein for the reduction of sentence.”3 his first violation of probation. The Supe rior Court denied Lake’s motion, finding no legal or factual merit to either claim. This appeal followed. (4) Lake raises five issues in his opening brief on appeal. First, he contends that he had completed serving the probationary sentences that were originally imposed in 2007 and, thus , could not be charged with violating probation as to those sentences. Next , he argues that State committed an evidentiary violation and engaged in misconduc t at his March 2009 tr ial. Third, he contends that the judge was biased agains t him. Fourth, he contends that the Superior Court erred in de nying his petition for a writ of mandamus. Finally, he contends that his trial counsel provi ded ineffective assistance of counsel. (5) We find no merit to Lake’s a ppeal. A motion for correction of sentence is very narrow in scope. 4 Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a) permits relief when “the sentence imposed exceed s the statutorily-authorized limits, [or] violates the Double Jeopardy Clause.” 5 A sentence also is illegal if it “is ambiguous with respect to the time and ma nner in which it is to be served, is internally contradictory, omits a term required to be imposed by statute, is uncertain as to the substan ce of the sentence, or is a sentence which the judgment of conviction did not authorize.” 6

4 Brittingham v. State , 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998). 5 Id. (quoting United States v. Pavlico , 961 F.2d 440, 443 (4 th Cir. 1992)). 6 Id. ( quoting United States v. Dougherty , 106 F.3d 1514, 1515 (10 th Cir. 1997)).4 (6) With respect to his 2009 VOP sentence, Lake contends that the sentence is illegal because he had alrea dy successfully completed his probation before he was charged with a violation. His contenti on, however, is unsupported by the facts. The record reflects that La ke had been sentenced on five criminal charges on July 20, 2007. Under the terms of that sentence, which was modified on September 4, 2007, Lake was required to spend four months at Level V, six months at Level IV work re lease, and one year at Leve l III probation. Before the expiration of his probationary term, La ke was arrested in August 2008 for noncompliance with the conditions of his bond, which resulted in a VOP charge being filed against him on September 15, 2008. Although the VOP hearing was continued pending the outcome of the new cr iminal charges, it is the date of the VOP charge and not the date of the VOP hearing that determines the Superior Court’s jurisdiction to c onduct the violation hearing. 7 Under the circumstances, there is simply no merit to Lake’s conten tion that he had successfully completed his 2007 probation before he wa s charged with his first VOP. (7) None of Lake’s four remaining is sues on appeal were raised in the motion for correction of sentence he filed in the Superior Cour t. Thus, in the

7 Moody v. State , 988 A.2d 451, 454 (Del. 2010) (holding that the date of the violation is the controlling factor in a ch allenge to a VOP hearing conducted af ter the expiration of an offender’s probationary period).5 absence of plain error, this Court w ill not consider those claims on appeal. 8 We find no plain error. All four of Lake’s remaining claims challenge the validity of his convictions. Such claims are not cognizable in a motion for correction of sentence under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a). 9 Furthermore, Lake’s claims of prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel were previously rejected by this Court when Lake appeal ed the Superior Court’s denial of his motion for postconviction relief. 10 Also, to the extent that Lake is arguing that the Superior Court erred in de nying his petition for a writ of mandamus in a different civil action, Lake filed a notice of appe al from that decision but later voluntarily dismissed his appeal. 11 Accordingly, he has waived any claim of error as to the Superior Court’s dismissal of his mandamus petition. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED th at the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT: /s/ Henry duPont Ridgely Justice

8 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 8 (2014). 9 Brittingham v. State , 705 A.2d at 508 (holding that a motion under Rule 35(a) may not be used to re-examine errors occurring pr ior to the imposition of sentence). 10 See Lake v. State , 2010 WL 3463392 (Del. Sept. 3, 2010). 11 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, In re Lake , No. 572, 2013, (Del. Feb. 10, 2014).