1

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE )

)

V. ) I.D.: 2004004125

)

ERIC TEEL, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

This 1st day of September, 2022, the Court hereby finds:

1. Mr. Teel has filed two pro se motions. One is styled a motion for postconviction relief (“Rule 61 motion”), the other is styled a motion to correct an illegal 

sentence (“Rule 35 motion”). Both say the same thing and neither make out a case 

for relief. His Rule 61 motion is denied because he has not made out a claim of 

ineffective assistance of counsel. His Rule 35 motion is denied because his sentence 

was not illegal. 

2. Mr. Teel pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a person prohibited 

(“PFBPP”) and a single count of harassment. Pursuant to the terms of the plea 

agreement, he was sentenced immediately to 10 years in prison, the minimum 

mandatory for a conviction of PFBPP with a prior record that includes two “violent” 

felonies.1 

1 See 11 Del. C. §1448(e)(1)(c).
2

3. Mr. Teel’s complaint has to do with his prior convictions, both violent 

felonies. He has no dispute but that he was convicted previously of stalking, a 

violent felony.2 His complaint has to do with a 2008 conviction for possession with 

intent to deliver marijuana.

3

4. Mr. Teel says that possession with intent to deliver marijuana is no 

longer considered a “violent felony” under section 4201(c). From this precarious 

assumption, he wants to argue that he does not have two violent felony convictions, 

but only one, thus subjecting him to a 5 year minimum mandatory, not 10. 

5. But his assumption, like so many, is in error. As Mr. Teel explains, he 

was convicted previously of possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in 

violation of 16 Del. C. §4752. That offense, to this day, remains on the list of 

“violent” felonies that trigger the enhanced/mandatory sentences of 11 Del. C.

§1448(e). 

6. In fairness, it may not be Mr. Teel who is in error, but the “authority”

he has relied on. Mr. Teel has appended a “summary of drug offenses” that appears 

2 11 Del. C. §4201(c).

3

It has since been learned that the immediate sentencing form calls this offense 

“possession within a school zone” but that is not what the conviction was for. Both 

the State and defense counsel have agreed that they understood the second “violent 

felony” for sentencing purposes was possession with intent to deliver. Indeed, 

defendant does not claim otherwise. See Motion for Correction of Illegal Sentence 

p. 2 (“To my knowledge, the actual conviction was possession w/intent for 

marijuana.”). 
3

to be some sort of home brewed synopsis of the mandatory statutes, typed up for the 

benefit of pro se inmates. He has highlighted a portion that says, in part, “if you 

have past drug convictions, those drug convictions can no longer be used to up the 

felony charge to any higher degree, nor can they be used to impose a greater sentence 

against you.”4 

7. Well, that is sort of correct, but not quite. Way back when, a second 

offense for drug dealing did indeed “up” the felony charge to a higher degree and 

also triggered a mandatory sentence. Those enhanced penalty laws in Title 16 were 

indeed repealed in 2011.5 

8. But a repeal of some of the more draconian aspects of the drug laws did 

not amount to a complete renunciation of the offenses generally or declare some 

general absolution. Section 4201(c), defining “violent felonies,” underwent a huge 

expansion in 1996, defining about 70 different offenses as “violent,” with substantial 

reverberations in the sentencing laws. Most significantly, those offenses impacted 

the minimum sentence that judges were required to impose when the defendant 

qualified as a habitual offender.6 Prior violent felonies in effect turned some habitual 

offender sentencing into mandatory minimums.

4 D.I. 11 attachment. 

5 78 Del. Laws, ch. 13 (2011).

6 See generally 11 Del. C. §4214.
4

9. But the term “violent felony” does not only impact habitual offender 

sentencing. It also impacts the person prohibited statute. And the Legislature has 

not removed the former offense of delivery or possession with intent to deliver 

controlled substances from the list of violent felonies.

7

 Indeed, the jailhouse 

information Mr. Teel appended to his pleading informs the reader that drug dealing 

remains a violent felony and that “if there are Lawyers who are advising you that 

drug dealing is not a violent felony (simply because the habitual offender guidelines 

have been changed regarding drug crimes), then this lawyer is peddling FALSE 

information to you.” Indeed.8 

10. Defendant’s prior conviction for possession with intent to distribute 

marijuana was, and remains, a violent felony as defined by the Delaware Code.

7 11 Del. C. §4201(c).

8 Mr. Teel writes that his 2008 conviction for possession with intent to distribute 

marijuana involved only 3 grams of the drug. Taking him at his word, the Court can 

only point out that when the General Assembly passes mandatory sentencing laws, 

it leaves the Court with no choice but to impose the sentence and no option to 

consider the nuances he raises. The Court may sympathize with Mr. Teel’s 

misfortune, but the Court is powerless to do anything about it. Mr. Teel may have 

some avenue for relief from the legislative or the executive branch, but those two 

branches have effectively foreclosed further consideration of his plight by the 

judiciary. 
5

For the reasons state above, Defendant’s Rule 61 and Rule 35 motions are 

hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Charles E. Butler, Resident Judge

cc: Nichole W. Warner, Esquire

Raymond D. Armstrong, Esquire

Mr. Eric Teel