Title: Alexander v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 237, 2003
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: September 29, 2003

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
THOMAS V. ALEXANDER, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 237, 2003 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr.A. No. IN92-06-0968 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: August 15, 2003 
Decided:  September 29, 2003 
 
Before BERGER, STEELE and JACOBS, Justices 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 29th day of September 2003, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal 
and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Thomas V. Alexander, filed an appeal from 
the Superior Court’s April 25, 2003 order denying his “motion for clerical 
mistakes” pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 36.  We find no merit to the 
appeal.  Accordingly, we AFFIRM. 
 
(2) 
In February 1994, Alexander pleaded guilty to Murder in the Second 
Degree.  He was sentenced to 15 years incarceration at Level V, 10 years of which 
was a minimum mandatory term, to be followed by 5 years of Level II probation.  
In February 1999, Alexander filed a motion for modification of sentence pursuant 
 
2
to Superior Court Criminal Rule 35 on the ground that he had been sentenced to 10 
years, not 15, at Level V, with 5 years of probation.  The Superior Court denied 
Alexander’s Rule 35 motion and Alexander did not take an appeal.    
 
(3) 
In the instant appeal from the Superior Court’s denial of his Rule 36 
motion, Alexander again claims that his sentence should be 10 years at Level V, 
with 5 years of probation.  He now appears to base his claim on the Superior 
Court’s failure to include the 5-year period of probation in its original sentencing 
order.   
 
(4) 
Alexander’s claim is essentially the same claim he previously asserted 
pursuant to Rule 35.  He is, therefore, barred from re-litigating that claim in this 
proceeding. 1   
 
(5) 
Even if Alexander’s claim were not procedurally barred, it is without 
merit.  That the Superior Court’s original sentencing order did not include the 
probationary portion of his sentence is of no importance.  That portion of 
Alexander’s sentence is reflected on the sentencing worksheet and was enunciated 
by the Superior Court at the sentencing hearing.  Moreover, the Superior Court 
corrected the oversight in an amended sentencing order filed on June 6, 1994.  
There is no question that Alexander’s sentence is 15 years at Level V followed by 
                                                                 
1Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 579 (Del. 1998). 
 
3
5 years of Level II probation.  Therefore, the Superior Court correctly denied 
Alexander’s “motion for clerical mistakes.”   
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice