IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STEVIE A. JONES,

Defendant Below,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE,

Plaintiff Below,

Appellee.

§

§ No. 98, 2021

§

§

§

§ Court Below–Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§ 

§ Cr. ID No. 0609013400 (S)

§ 

§

Submitted: May 18, 2021

 Decided: July 27, 2021

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; TRAYNOR and MONTGOMERY-REEVES,

Justices.

O R D E R

After careful consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the State’s motion 

to affirm, and the record on appeal, it appears to the Court that:

(1) Stevie Jones appeals the Superior Court’s April 16, 2021 order denying 

his motion for correction of illegal sentence. The State has filed a motion to affirm 

the judgment below on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Jones’ opening 

brief that his appeal is without merit. We agree and affirm.

(2) In 2008, Jones pled guilty to first-degree robbery, aggravated

menacing, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, reckless 

endangering, and second-degree assault. In exchange for his plea, the State 
2

dismissed another thirty-five charges pending against him. The Superior Court 

immediately sentenced Jones—in accordance with the plea agreement—to fifteen 

years of Level V incarceration, followed by probation. Jones did not appeal his 

convictions or sentence.

(3) On April 14, 2021, Jones filed a motion for correction of illegal 

sentence under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a). The Superior Court denied 

Jones’ motion, finding that Jones’ sentence remained reasonable and appropriate. 

This appeal followed.

(4) On appeal, Jones argues that the sentence imposed by the Superior 

Court runs afoul of the double jeopardy protections of the Fifth Amendment to the 

United States Constitution because the Superior Court imposed multiple 

punishments for the same conduct. Specifically, Jones contends that the Fifth 

Amendment requires that his convictions for aggravated menacing and first-degree 

robbery be merged for sentencing purposes. Jones’ argument is unavailing.

(5) The record reflects that Jones pled guilty and that the Superior Court 

imposed the sentence agreed to by the parties. “It is well established that a voluntary 

guilty plea waives any claim of a double jeopardy violation.”1 Therefore, although 

1 Lanzo v. State, 2015 WL 5120872, at *1 (Del. Aug. 28, 2015); see also Melton v. State, 2013 

WL 4538701, at *1 (Del. Aug. 22, 2013); Roten v. State, 2011 WL 6916540, at *1 (Del. Dec. 28, 

2011); Benge v. State, 945 A.2d 1099, 1101 (Del. 2008); Bowers v. State, 2007 WL 2359553, at 

*1 (Del. Aug. 20, 2007); Locklear v. State, 1990 WL 72549, at *2 (Del. May 9, 1990) (citing

United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563, 569 (1989) (“A plea of guilty and the ensuing conviction 
3

it appears that the Superior Court mistakenly treated the motion as a motion for 

sentence modification under Superior Court Rule 35(b), we nonetheless affirm the 

Superior Court’s denial of the motion on the independent and alternative ground that 

it lacked merit under Rule 35(a).2

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to affirm 

is GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Tamika R. Montgomery-Reeves

Justice

comprehend all of the factual and legal elements necessary to sustain a binding, final judgment of 

guilt and a lawful sentence.”)).

2 Unitrin, Inc. v. American Gen. Corp., 651 A.2d 1361, 1390 (Del. 1995) (noting that the Court 

may affirm a trial court’s judgment for reasons different than those articulated by the trial court).