IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

CHRISTOPHER WEST
,
Defendant Below

Appellant,

v.
STATE OF DELAWARE,

Plaintiff Below

Appellee. § § No. 298, 2016 § § § Court Below : Superior Court § of the State of Delaware § § Cr. ID 1 107001026 § § §

Submitted: July 20, 2016 Decided: September 23 , 201 6

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

O R D E R

This 23 rd day of September 2016 , upon consideration of the appellant’s
opening brief and amended appendix , th e State’s amended motion to affirm, and

the record below including the supplemental transcript , it appears to the Court that:
(1) The defendant

- appellant, Christopher West , filed this appeal from the
Superior Court’s clarification of his habitual offender sentence on June 7, 2016 and
resulting denial of his motion for correction of sentence. We find no merit to the
appeal. Accordingly, we affirm.
(2) The record reflects that West pled guilty in January 201 2 to one count

each of Robbery in the First Degre e and Robbery in the Second Degree. Through
counsel, West agreed that he was eligible for sentencing as a habitual offender2

under 11 Del. C. § 4214(a). On March 30, 2012, the Superior Court declared West

to be a habitual offender and sentenced him to a t otal period of twenty

- eight years
at Level V incarceration to be suspended after serving twenty

- five years in prison
for a period of probation. West did not file a direct appeal. Since his sentencing
, West has filed three unsuccessful motions for postcon viction relief under Superior

Court Criminal Rule 61. 1

(3) In April and May of 2016, West filed a motion and an amended

motion for correction of illegal sentence under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a).
He alleged that his habitual offender sentence i s i llegal because the State failed to
prove that West had three prior felony convictions, as evidenced by the sentencing
judge’s statement that West had “three separate felonies, each successive to the

other, including the present matter....” 2 West also argued that his sentence is
illegal because the judge did not properly consider the presentence investigation
report (“PSI”). On June 7, 2016, the Superior Court held a hearing and clarified on

the record that West had three prior felony convictions, not includ ing his most
recent conviction, which formed the base s for We st’s habitual offender sentence.

1 See , e.g., West v. State , 2016 WL 4547912 (Del. Aug. 31, 2016) (affirming the denial of West’s third Rule 61 motion).

2 Sentencing Hearing Tr. at 3 (Mar. 30, 2012) (emphasis added)

. Despite this stateme nt, which appears to suggest that West only had two prior felony convictions, the guilty plea transcript shows that West conceded he was a habitual offender because of three prior felony convictions in 2003, 2004, and 2009. Guilty Plea Tr. at 3 (Jan. 9, 2 012).3

The Superior Court other wise denied West ’s motion for correction of illegal

sentence . This appeal followed.
(4 ) After careful consideration , we affirm the Super ior Court’s judgment,
but we do so on the independent and alternative basis that West’s motion, which
challenged the legality of the manner in which his sentence was imposed, was not
timely filed. 3 Under Rule 35(a), a motion for correction of illegal sent ence may be
filed “at any time.” 4 But, a motion to correct a sentence imposed in an illegal
manner is subject to the 90

- day limitations period of Rule 35(b). 5

(5) 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 the substance of the sentence, or is a sentence that the judgment

of conviction did not author ize. 6 West’s claims that he did not receive a proper
habitual offender hearing and that the sentencing judge did not mention the PSI
report relate to the manner in which his sentence was imposed. 7 Given that West
conceded he was eligible for habitual off ender sentencing, there are no

3 Unitrin, Inc. v. American Gen. Corp. 651 A.2d 1361, 1390 (Del. 1995) (noting that the Delaware Supreme Court may affirm a trial court's judgment for reasons different than those articulated by the trial court).

4 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(a).

5 Id.

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

7 See Davis v. State , 2016 WL 358965 (Del. Jan. 28, 2016).4

extraordinary circumstances to warrant the Superior Court’s consideration of his
untimely motion under Rule 35(b). 8

(6) West’s remaining claims on appeal all stem from his mistaken
characterization of the Superior Court’s Ju ne 7, 2016 hearing on his motion for
correction of sentence as a “resentencing” hearing. In fact, the purpose of the June
7, 2016 hearing, as stated by the Superior Court several times on the record, was
simply to clarify something that was said at West’s original sentencing hearing.
The clarification did not result in any modification of the Superior Court’s 2012
sentencing order . Under the circumstances, we find no merit to West’s assertions

that, before the June 7 hearing, the Superior Court was requi red: (i) to appoint
counsel to represent him; (ii) to consider his motion to withdraw his plea; and (iii)
to hold a new habitual offender hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior

Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Randy J. Holland Justice

8 Id.