Title: Walls v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 137, 2010
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: December 28, 2010

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JOSEPH  M. WALLS, 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 137, 2010 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below—Superior Court 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware in and
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
for New Castle County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
Cr. ID No. 86013001DI 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Submitted: September 24, 2010 
Decided: 
December 28, 2010 
 
 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 28th day of December 2010, upon consideration of the briefs on 
appeal and the Superior Court record, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
In 1986, a Superior Court jury convicted the appellant, Joseph 
M. Walls, of numerous criminal offenses, including Possession of a Deadly 
Weapon During the Commission of a Felony (PDWDCF).  Walls is serving 
a lengthy prison sentence for those convictions, including “fifteen (15) years 
mandatory beginning June 15, 1987” for PDWDCF.1   
                                          
 
1 State v. Walls, Del. Super., Cr. ID No. 86013001DI, Martin, J. (March 8, 1988) 
(sentencing).  
(2) 
On December 7, 2009, Walls filed a motion for correction of 
illegal sentence pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a) (“Rule 
35(a)”).  Walls alleged that he is entitled to the application of good time 
credit to the fifteen-year sentence imposed for PDWDCF.   
(3) 
By order dated February 26, 2010, the Superior Court denied 
Walls’ motion.  This appeal followed.  After careful consideration of the 
parties’ positions on appeal, we have concluded that the denial of Walls’ 
motion should be affirmed.   
(4) 
As held by the Superior Court when denying the motion under 
Rule 35(a), Walls’ claim in essence relates to the Department of 
Correction’s application of good time credits.  We have held that a writ of 
mandamus filed in the Superior Court (and not a motion under Rule 35(a)) is 
the proper procedural vehicle to challenge the Department of Correction’s 
calculation or application of good time credit.2   
(5) 
Walls’ argument that the Superior Court lacked the statutory 
authority to make the fifteen-year sentence “mandatory” is without merit.  
At the time of Walls’ offense, the statute governing PDWDCF provided that 
                                          
 
2 Bruno v. State, 2010 WL 1227049 (Del. Supr.). 
2 
 
3 
 
“[n]o person convicted for a violation of this section shall be eligible for 
parole or probation during the period of the sentence imposed.”3 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
                                          
 
3Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 1447(b) (Supp. 1986) (amended 2001).