Title: Epperson v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 532, 2001
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: March 22, 2002

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
KEVIN S. EPPERSON,
Defendant Below-
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF DELAWARE,
Plaintiff Below-
Appellee.
§
§
§  No. 532, 2001
§
§
§  Court Below—Superior Court
§  of the State of Delaware,
§  in and for New Castle County
§  Cr.A. No. IN94-08-1484 and
§  1485
§
Submitted: January 11, 2002
  Decided:
March 22, 2002
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, BERGER, and STEELE, Justices.
O R D E R
This 22nd day of March 2002, upon consideration of the parties’ briefs and
the record below, it appears to the Court that:
(1)
The defendant-appellant, Kevin Epperson, filed this appeal from the
Superior Court’s denial of his motion for correction of an illegal sentence under
Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a).  The Superior Court held that Epperson’s
assertion that he had received three sentences for only two criminal offenses was
incorrect as a matter of fact.  Moreover, the Superior Court held that Epperson’s
attempt to attack his underlying convictions was inappropriate under Rule 35(a).
We find no error in the Superior Court’s ruling.  Accordingly, we affirm.
2
(2)
The record reflects that Epperson was convicted by a Superior Court
jury in 1996 of first degree kidnapping and second degree unlawful sexual contact.
The Superior Court sentenced Epperson as an habitual offender to 52 years
imprisonment followed by 8 years probation.  This Court affirmed Epperson’s
convictions and sentences on direct appeal.1 Since then, Epperson has filed several
unsuccessful petitions for state postconviction relief and federal habeas corpus
relief.
(3)
In his latest motion for correction of sentence under Superior Court
Criminal Rule 35(a), Epperson appears to have asserted that the Superior Court
illegally imposed separate sentences on him for his two underlying convictions and
for his status as an habitual offender.  Epperson’s other disjointed arguments
raising double jeopardy and jurisdictional claims appear to be related to his claim
that his habitual offender sentence was allegedly improper.
(4)
There is no merit to any of Epperson’s claims.  The record reflects
that the Superior Court declared Epperson to be an habitual offender based on
Epperson’s prior felony convictions.  The Superior Court sentenced Epperson as an
habitual offender on the second degree unlawful sexual contact charge to 40 years
imprisonment.  The Superior Court also sentenced Epperson on the kidnapping
charge to 20 years imprisonment, suspended after 12 years for 8 years of work
                                                 
1 Epperson v. State, Del. Supr., No. 214, 1996, Walsh, J. (Feb. 6, 1997).
3
release and probation.  Epperson’s contention that he received three separate
sentences is simply wrong.  Moreover, Epperson’s contentions that his habitual
offender sentence improperly punished him twice for the same conduct in violation
of double jeopardy principles is without merit. The United States Supreme Court
has consistently rejected double jeopardy challenges, like Epperson’s, to
sentencing schemes that enhance a defendant's sentence because of a prior
conviction.2  Epperson’s remaining claims appear to challenge his underlying
convictions and, as the Superior Court properly found, are not appropriate in a
motion for correction of sentence under Rule 35(a).3
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior
Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
_/s/ Myron T. Steele__________________
Justice
                                                 
2 Witte v. United States, 515 U.S. 389, 398 (1995).
3 Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (1997).