Title: Lewis v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 250, 2009
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: September 8, 2009

1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JIMMIE LEWIS,   
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 250, 2009 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0305016966 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: August 5, 2009 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: September 8, 2009 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 8th day of September 2009, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief and the appellee’s motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 25(a), it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Jimmie Lewis, filed an appeal from 
the Superior Court’s April 22, 2009, order denying his motion for correction 
of an illegal sentence pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a).  The 
plaintiff-appellee, 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
 
(2) 
In October 2003, Lewis was found guilty by a Superior Court 
jury of Carjacking, Theft, and Resisting Arrest.  On the carjacking 
conviction, he was sentenced to five years incarceration at Level V.  On the 
theft conviction, he was sentenced to two years at Level V, to be suspended 
after one year for one year at Level IV Plummer Center, in turn to be 
suspended after six months for Level III probation.  The sentencing order 
reflects that Lewis was to be held at Level V until space was available at 
Level IV.  On the conviction of resisting arrest, he was sentenced to one year 
at Level V, to be suspended for one year at Level II probation.  This Court 
affirmed Lewis’ convictions on direct appeal.1  Lewis’ three previous 
postconviction motions were denied by the Superior Court.  Lewis’ 
subsequent appeals of those denials to this Court were unsuccessful.2     
 
(3) 
In Lewis’ appeal from his latest postconviction motion, he 
claims that his sentence is illegal because he was forced to remain at Level 
V custody awaiting an opening at Level IV for more than ninety days.  He 
seeks release from any further Level V or Level IV custody.   
 
(4) 
The record reflects that Lewis began serving his Level IV 
sentence on December 21, 2008.  At that time, he was still incarcerated at 
                                                 
1 Lewis v. State, Del. Supr., No. 64, 2005, Berger, J. (Sept. 29, 2005). 
2 Lewis v. State, Del. Supr., No. 536, 2006, Jacobs, J. (Dec. 12, 2006); Lewis v. State, Del. 
Supr., No. 233, 2007, Jacobs, J. (Nov. 15, 2007); Lewis v. State, Del. Supr., No. 161, 
2008, Steele, C.J. (July 14, 2008). 
 
3
Level V awaiting space at Level IV.  On December 24, 2008, three days 
later, Lewis was transferred to the VOP Center, where he remained for 
ninety-eight days.  On April 1, 2009, he was moved to the Webb 
Community Corrections Center for fourteen days.  Two weeks later, he was 
transferred to the Plummer Center, where he served thirty-eight days before 
being released to Level III probation on May 23, 2009.  The record further 
reflects that Lewis is now living in North Carolina. 
 
(5) 
Because Lewis is no longer in the custody of the Department of 
Correction, his claim is moot.  His claim is without merit in any case.  
Because there is no evidence that Lewis’ sentence exceeds the statutorily-
authorized limits, is internally contradictory or ambiguous, or violates 
double jeopardy, his claim is not cognizable under Rule 35(a).3  As such, the 
judgment of the Superior Court must be affirmed. 
 
(6) 
It is manifest on the face of the opening brief that the 
appellant’s appeal is without merit because the issues presented are 
controlled by settled Delaware law and, to the extent that judicial discretion 
is implicated, there was no abuse of discretion. 
 
 
                                                 
3 Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998). 
 
4
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State of Delaware’s 
motion to affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is 
AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice