Title: Croll v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 207, 2016
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: July 18, 2016

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
PATRICK F. CROLL, 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 207, 2016 
 
Petitioner Below,  
 
§ 
Appellant, 
§ 
Court Below—Superior Court  
§ 
of the State of Delaware  
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
C.A. No. N16M-04-046 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
Cr. ID Nos. 0803007023  
 
Respondent Below, 
 
§ 
  
 
0801001836 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Submitted: May 20, 2016 
Decided: 
July 18, 2016 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices. 
 
    ORDER 
 
 
This 18th day of July 2016, having considered the appellant’s opening brief 
and the appellee’s motion to affirm under Supreme Court Rule 25(a), it appears to 
the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The appellant, Patrick F. Croll, filed this appeal from the Superior 
Court’s order dated April 12, 2016, denying his petition for a writ of habeas 
corpus.  The State of Delaware has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment 
on the ground that it is manifest on the face of the opening brief that the appeal is 
without merit.  We agree and affirm. 
 
(2) 
Croll was indicted in February 2008 on numerous charges, including 
Aggravated Menacing, Possession of a Deadly Weapon during the Commission of 
2 
 
a Felony (“PDWDCF”), and Endangering the Welfare of a Child.  The charges 
stemmed from Croll’s assault of his girlfriend in the presence of a two-year-old 
child.  In a separate indictment handed down the following month, Croll was 
charged with Unlawful Sexual Contact in the First Degree and Offensive 
Touching.  The charges in that case stemmed from Croll’s abuse of a nine-year-old 
child. 
 
(3) 
In June 2008, Croll pled guilty to Aggravating Menacing, PDWDCF 
and Endangering the Welfare of a Child from the first indictment and to Unlawful 
Sexual Contact in the Second Degree, a lesser-included offense of first degree 
unlawful sexual contact, under the second indictment.  In exchange for Croll’s 
guilty plea, the State agreed to dismiss the other charges in the two indictments. 
 
(4) 
On February 6, 2009, the Superior Court sentenced Croll to a total of 
thirty-three years at Level V imprisonment suspended after nineteen years for 
decreasing levels of supervision.  Croll’s sentence included a five year term of 
imprisonment for Aggravated Menacing and a twenty-five year term of 
imprisonment for PDWDCF, which was suspended after eleven years for six 
months at Level IV work release and six months at Level III probation.   
3 
 
 
(5) 
Between 2009 and 2015, Croll filed a series of unsuccessful motions 
in the Superior Court seeking relief from his convictions and sentence.1  With one 
exception, if Croll filed a timely appeal from the Superior Court’s decision, this 
Court affirmed.2 
 
(6) 
In his habeas corpus petition and in his opening brief on appeal, Croll 
claims that his separate terms of imprisonment for Aggravated Menacing and 
PDWDCF exposed him to multiple punishments for the same offense in violation 
of the prohibition against double jeopardy.  In essence, Croll seeks relief from an 
illegal sentence under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35.3  A claim of illegal 
sentence cannot be reviewed under a writ of habeas corpus.4 
 
(7) 
Habeas corpus relief is available only to ensure that the prisoner is 
held under a legally valid commitment issued by a court of competent jurisdiction.5  
In this case, the Superior Court summarily denied Croll’s habeas corpus petition on 
                                
1 Croll’s direct appeal from the February 6, 2009 sentence was dismissed as untimely.  Croll v. 
State, 2009 WL 1042172 (Del. April 17, 2009). 
2 See Croll v. State, 2010 WL 780505 (Del. Mar. 8, 2010) (remanding for clarification or 
correction of sentence due to ambiguity in no contact and supervised visitation provisions in 
sentencing order); Croll v. State, 2016 WL 853130 (Del. Mar. 2, 2016) (affirming denial of 
second postconviction motion); Croll v. State, 2012 WL 4882379 (Del. Oct. 15, 2012) (affirming 
denial of motion for correction of sentence); State v. Croll, 2010 WL 3103396 (Del. Super., June 
2, 2010) (denying postconviction motion), aff’d, 2011 WL 486615 (Feb. 9, 2011).   
3 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35 (governing correction or reduction of sentence); Brittingham v. 
State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998) (providing that relief under Rule 35(a) is available when 
the sentence imposed violates the double jeopardy clause).    
4 See Webb v. State, 2007 WL 2310111 (Del. Aug. 14, 2007) (citing Lewis v. State, 221 A.2d 
433, 434 (Del. 1965)); LaTorre v. State, 2005 WL 1950210 (Del. July 14, 2005) (affirming 
denial of habeas corpus petition in part on unavailability of habeas corpus relief to address 
double jeopardy claim).  
5 Hall v. Carr, 692 A.2d 888, 891 (Del. 1997) (quoting 10 Del. C. § 6902(1)). 
4 
 
the basis that Croll was being legally detained.  That decision was entirely correct.  
The Superior Court had subject matter jurisdiction over the charges in the 
indictment, the authority to accept Croll’s guilty plea, and the authority to impose a 
sentence for the convictions.6  Croll has not demonstrated that he is being illegally 
detained and, for that reason, he is not entitled to habeas corpus relief.7 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to affirm is 
GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Justice  
                                
6 11 Del. C. § 2701(c), (e) (governing Superior Court’s original criminal jurisdiction). 
7 Hall v. Carr, 692 A.2d at 891.