IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

JESSE J. BRYANT, JR., §

§ No. 191, 2014

Defendant Below, §

Appellant, § Court Below—Superior Court

§ the State of Delaware in and for

v. § New Castle County

§

STATE OF DELAWARE, § Cr. ID No. 92004686DI

§

Plaintiff Below, §

Appellee. §

Submitted: October 8, 2014

Decided: December 17, 2014

Before STRINE, Chief Justice, RIDGELY and VALIHURA, Justices.

O R D E R

This 17th day of December 2014, upon consideration of the appellant’s 

opening brief, the appellee’s motion to affirm filed under Supreme Court 

Rule 25(a), and the Superior Court record, it appears to the Court that:

(1) The appellant, Jesse J. Bryant, Jr. filed this appeal from the 

Superior Court’s March 28, 2014 denial of his motion for correction of 

sentence under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35 (hereinafter “Rule 35”). 

The appellee, State of Delaware, has filed a motion to affirm the Superior 

Court judgment on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Bryant’s 

opening brief that the appeal is without merit. We agree and affirm.
2

(2) In 1979, a Superior Court jury found Bryant guilty of Murder in 

the First Degree, Attempted Murder, two counts of Conspiracy in the First 

Degree, two counts of Possession of a Deadly Weapon During the 

Commission of a Felony, Burglary in the First Degree, and Conspiracy in 

the Second Degree. Bryant was sentenced to two consecutive terms of life 

imprisonment, plus thirty years. On direct appeal, we affirmed the Superior 

Court judgment.

(3) In 1992, based on our 1976 decision in State v. Spence, the 

Superior Court corrected the life sentence imposed for murder in the first 

degree in Bryant’s case to provide that the sentence was not subject to 

parole.1 On appeal, we affirmed the correction of Bryant’s sentence, holding 

that “[u]nder the governing law . . . the Superior Court judge had no 

discretion in sentencing whatsoever—he had to sentence Bryant to life 

imprisonment without the possibility of parole.”2 Furthermore, in 2007, 

when affirming the Superior Court denial of Bryant’s motion for 

postconviction relief, we again held that “the Superior Court did not enhance 

Bryant’s sentence [by providing that the sentence was not subject to parole] 

 

1

In State v. Spence, 367 A.2d 983 (Del. 1976), we held that the appropriate punishment 

for first degree murder was life imprisonment without possibility of parole.

2

Bryant v. State, 1993 WL 22040, at *1 (Del. Jan. 8, 1993).
3

but merely corrected the sentencing order to conform to the dictates of 

Delaware law.”

3

(4) In November 2013, Bryant filed a motion for correction of 

sentence under Rule 35, claiming that the 1992 corrected sentence was 

illegal because the law in effect at the time he committed the offenses did 

not expressly prohibit a life sentence without benefit of parole. Bryant 

argued that our decision in State v. Spence did not apply to his case because 

he was not one of the nine defendants named in that certification proceeding. 

By order dated March 28, 2014, the Superior Court denied Bryant’s motion 

for correction of sentence. This appeal followed.

(5) Bryant has provided no support for his claim that our decision 

in State v. Spence was limited to the nine defendants named in that 

proceeding. To the contrary, in our October 1976 Opinion in State v. 

Spence, we specifically noted that, in addition to the nine named defendants:

[T]here are three first degree murder cases now

pending in the Superior Court in which the 

imposition of the death sentence under § 4209 is 

being withheld pending this decision; and there are 

at least 13 charges of murder in the first degree 

presently awaiting indictment or trial in the 

Superior Court.4

 

3

Bryant v. State, 2007 WL 2049781, at *2 (Del. July 18, 2007).

4

State v. Spence, 367 A.2d 983, 985 n.2 (Del. 1976). 
4

Bryant was indicted in July 1976.5 In view of our prior decisions and 

Bryant’s failure to provide any change in law or circumstance requiring that 

we revisit the issues he raises on appeal, we conclude that the Superior Court 

did not err in denying Bryant’s motion for correction of illegal sentence.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to 

affirm is GRANTED. The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura

Justice

 

5

See docket at 1, State v. Bryant, Del. Super., Cr. ID No. 92004686DI (July 14, 1976).