IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

DEVIN L. COLEMAN,

Defendant BelowAppellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE,

Plaintiff BelowAppellee.

§

§

§ No. 63, 2018

§

§

§ Court Below—Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§ 

§ Cr. ID Nos. 1303012706

§ and 1303004663 (K)

§

Submitted: March 8, 2018

 Decided: May 15, 2018

Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices.

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the State’s motion to 

affirm, and the record below, it appears to the Court that:

(1) The defendant-appellant, Devin Coleman, filed this appeal from the 

Superior Court’s denial of his motion for correction of sentence under Superior 

Court Criminal Rule 35(a). The State has moved to affirm the judgment below on 

the ground that it is manifest on the face of Coleman’s opening brief that his appeal 

is without merit. We agree and affirm.

(2) The record reflects that Coleman pled guilty in June 2014 to five 

charges under two separate indictments. As part of his plea agreement, Coleman 

acknowledged that he was eligible for sentencing as a habitual offender under 11 
-2-

Del. C. § 4214(a) and agreed to immediate sentencing. The Superior Court 

sentenced him, effective March 15, 2013, as follow: (i) on one count of Possession 

of a Firearm by a Person Prohibited (“PFPP”), eight years at Level V incarceration; 

(ii) on each of two counts of Failing to Obey a Police Signal, two years at Level V 

incarceration suspended for one year of probation; (iii) on one count of Conspiracy 

in the Second Degree, two years at Level V incarceration suspended for one year of 

probation; and (iv) on one count of Reckless Endangering in the Second Degree, one 

year at Level V incarceration suspended for one year of probation. In exchange for 

his plea, the State dismissed thirty other charges against Coleman. 

(3) Coleman did not file a direct appeal. Instead, he has filed multiple 

unsuccessful motions seeking postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal 

Rule 61 and modification or correction of his sentence under Rule 35. Coleman filed 

his latest motion for correction of illegal sentence in March 2017, which he 

supplemented in June 2017. The Superior Court denied relief. This appeal followed. 

(4) Coleman raises one argument in his opening brief on appeal. He 

contends that his eight year, minimum mandatory sentence for PFPP is illegal 

because the PFPP statute, 11 Del. C. § 1448(e)(3), expressly provides that a sentence 

imposed under that statute is not subject to the enhanced sentencing provisions of 11 

Del. C. § 4215. 
-3-

(5) There is no merit to Coleman’s contention. A sentence is illegal when 

it exceeds the statutorily authorized limits, violates the Double Jeopardy Clause, 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 the substance of the sentence, or is a sentence which the judgment of conviction 

did not authorize.1In his guilty plea agreement, Coleman admitted that he had the 

requisite number of prior felony convictions to be sentenced as a habitual offender 

under 11 Del. C. § 4214(a). Under that statute, the Superior Court had discretion to 

impose a sentence “up to life imprisonment.”2 The Superior Court sentenced 

Coleman on his PFPP conviction to an eight year, minimum mandatory term of

incarceration under Section 4214(a), not Section 4215. Coleman’s argument on 

appeal lacks any factual basis. His sentence is not illegal.

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

 

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

2 11 Del. C. § 4214(a) (2015).