IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

KLEON PULLER, 

Defendant Below, 

Appellant, 

v. 

STATE OF DELAWARE, 

Appellee.

§ 

§ 

§ No. 282, 2022 

§ 

§ Court Below—Superior Court 

§ of the State of Delaware 

§ 

§ Cr. ID No. 9902004516 (N) 

§ 

§

Submitted: December 23, 2022 

Decided: January 27, 2023 

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices. 

ORDER

Upon consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal, it appears 

to the Court that: 

(1) The appellant, Kleon Puller, filed this appeal from a Superior Court 

order denying his motion for correction of sentence. For the reasons set forth below, 

this Court affirms the Superior Court’s judgment. 

(2) On March 1, 2001, after a three-day trial, a Superior Court jury found 

Puller guilty of attempted first-degree murder, possession of a firearm during the 

commission of a felony and endangering the welfare of a child. Puller admitted to 

shooting his girlfriend in the face, but said it was an accident. The Superior Court 

sentenced Puller to life imprisonment plus a term of years. On appeal, this Court 
2

affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment.1 In 2015, this Court affirmed the Superior 

Court’s denial of Puller’s first motion for postconviction relief under Superior Court 

Criminal Rule 61.2

(3) On June 10, 2022, Puller filed a motion for correction of sentence under 

Rule 35(a). He argued that his life sentence for attempted first-degree murder was 

illegal because it was imposed under 11 Del. C. § 4209, which only applies to the 

crime of first-degree murder. The Superior Court denied the motion. This appeal 

followed. 

(4) This Court reviews the denial of a motion for correction of illegal 

sentence for abuse of discretion.3 We review questions of law de novo.4 A sentence 

is illegal if it exceeds statutory limits, violates double jeopardy, is ambiguous with 

respect to the time and manner in which it is to be served, is internally contradictory, 

omits a term required to be imposed by statute, is uncertain as to its substance, or is 

a sentence that the judgment of conviction did not authorize.5 Although the Superior 

Court appeared to treat Puller’s motion as a motion for reduction of sentence under 

Rule 35(b) instead of a motion for correction of illegal sentence under Superior Rule 

1 Puller v. State, 2002 WL 529909 (Del. Apr. 5, 2002). 

2 Puller v. State, 2015 WL 428582 (Del. Jan. 30, 2015). 

3 Fountain v. State, 2014 WL 4102069, at *1 (Del. Aug. 19, 2014). 

4

Id.

5 Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998). 
3

35(a), we affirm the Superior Court’s denial of the motion on the alternative grounds 

that his sentence for attempted first-degree murder is not illegal.6

(5) As he did below, Puller argues that his life sentence for attempted firstdegree murder is illegal because it was imposed under Section 4209, which only 

applies to the crime of first-degree murder, instead of Section 4205, which applies 

to felonies other than first-degree murder. Under Section 4209 at the time of Puller’s 

crimes, the sentence for first-degree murder was life imprisonment or the death 

penalty. Under Section 4205(b)(1), the sentence for a class A felony like attempted 

first-degree murder ranged from fifteen years to life imprisonment. 

(6) The sentencing transcript reflects that the Superior Court sentenced 

Puller for attempted first-degree murder under Section 4205, not Section 4209. 

During sentencing, Puller’s counsel stated that Puller faced a minimum sentence of 

fifteen years for attempted murder. This was consistent with Section 4205(b)(1). 

Puller’s counsel presented mitigating circumstances, including Puller’s lack of 

criminal history and remorse, to argue that the Superior Court should not sentence 

him to more than the minimum mandatory time. The State argued that aggravating 

factors, including the victim’s pregnancy and the excessive cruelty of the crime, 

supported a sentence of life imprisonment. 

6 See Unitrin, Inc. v. Am. Gen. Corp., 651 A.2d 1361, 1390 (Del. 1995) (recognizing that this Court 

may affirm a trial court's decision “on the basis of a different rationale than that which was 

articulated by the trial court”). 
4

(7) After Puller addressed the court, the judge pronounced his sentence for 

attempted first-degree murder: 

It’s very easy to say that one didn’t mean to do something after the fact. 

When one places a gun in [sic] the head of an individual, there’s no 

doubt to me of intent, and there was no doubt on the part of the jury that 

there was an Attempted Murder in the First Degree in this particular 

case. 

The Court finds that there was excessive cruelty. Mr. Puller suggests 

that he was afraid and he was sorry, but yet, he didn’t stop to call 

medical attention, call for medical attention. He simply ran. 

He indicates that he thought that Miss Peebles was dead and left her for 

dead. Well, that’s exactly what the charge of Attempted Murder in the 

First Degree is, but for the fact of – if you believe in God, the grace of 

God, if you believe in fortune, fortune, that she survives today, but it 

was against all odds that she does survive today, and she has to face 

what happened for the rest of her life. You can stand here and say 

you’re sorry, but she has to deal and her family has to deal with what 

you did, and so, the Court finds that there is excessive cruelty and 

believes that life imprisonment is an appropriate sentence. 

So, with respect to 99-04-0580, Attempted Murder in the First Degree, 

the sentence is effective February 24th, 2000; the costs of prosecution 

are suspended, and the sentence is life imprisonment.7

It is clear that the Superior Court understood that Puller faced a sentence of fifteen 

years to life imprisonment for attempted first-degree murder under Section 

4205(b)(1) and determined that life imprisonment was the appropriate sentence. 

This sentence is not illegal. 

7

 June 29, 2001 Sentencing Transcript at 17, Appendix to Opening Brief. 
5

(8) As the State acknowledges, however, the written sentencing order is 

inconsistent with the sentence imposed by the Superior Court. The sentencing order 

provides: 

The Defendant is placed in the custody of the Department of Correction 

at Supervision Level 5 for life, not subject to suspension by the Court 

and shall be served in its entirety at a full custodial Level 5 institutional 

setting without benefit of probation or parole, pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 

4209(D)(2).8

The State suggests that this Court should affirm the Superior Court’s denial of the 

motion for correction of illegal sentence but remand this matter to the Superior Court 

for conformance of the sentencing order with the oral pronouncement of sentence. 

We agree. 

(9) “Federal courts have consistently held that when there is a direct 

conflict between an unambiguous oral pronouncement of a sentence and the written 

judgment, the oral pronouncement controls.”9 This Court has not adopted the federal 

rule, but has recognized that “Delaware statutory and case law authorize sentence 

correction for errors resulting from ‘oversight or omission.’”10 The Superior Court 

8

 Exhibit A, State’s Answering Brief. 

9 Bland v. State, 2006 WL 2960050, at *1 (Del. Oct. 17, 2006) (citing United States v. Chasmer, 

952 F.2d 50, 52 (3d Cir. 1991)). See also United States v. Pasley, 800 F. App’x 92, 94 (3d Cir. 

2020) (noting that the court follows the settled principle of federal criminal law that an orally 

pronounced sentence controls over a judgment and commitment order when there is a conflict).

10 Bland, 2006 WL 2960050, at *1 (citing Guyer v. State, 453 A.2d 462, 464 (Del. 1982) and citing 

and quoting Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 36). See also 11 Del. C. § 4501 (“In a criminal case, judgment 

shall not be reversed for any clerical misprision or formal defect, if the record contains substantial 

ground for judgment.”). 
6

may, at any time, correct “[c]lerical mistakes in judgments, orders or other parts of 

the records and errors in the record arising from oversight of omission.”11 We 

therefore affirm the Superior Court’s denial of Puller’s motion for correction of 

illegal sentence, but remand this matter to the Superior Court to correct the clerical 

error in the sentencing order. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 

Court is AFFIRMED. The matter is hereby REMANDED to the Superior Court for 

correction of the clerical error in the June 29, 2001 sentencing order. Jurisdiction is 

not retained. 

BY THE COURT: 

 

 /s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 

 Chief Justice 

11 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 36.