Title: Marvel v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 330, 2009
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: July 21, 2009

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
LARRY D. MARVEL,   
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 330, 2009 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0510007925 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: July 2, 2009 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: July 21, 2009 
 
Before HOLLAND, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 21st day of July 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, Larry D. Marvel, filed an appeal from 
the Superior Court’s May 19, 2009 order denying his motion to correct an 
illegal sentence pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a).  The 
plaintiff-appellee, the State of Delaware, has moved to affirm the Superior 
 
2
Court’s judgment on the ground that it is manifest on the face of the opening 
brief that the appeal is without merit.1  We agree and affirm.2   
 
(2) 
In May 2006, Marvel was found guilty by a Superior Court jury 
of Criminal Solicitation in the Second Degree and Conspiracy in the Second 
Degree.  He was sentenced as a habitual offender to life imprisonment for 
the criminal solicitation conviction3 and to an additional two years at Level 
V for the conspiracy conviction.  On direct appeal, this Court affirmed 
Marvel’s convictions and sentences.4 
 
(3) 
In this appeal, Marvel claims that his sentence for criminal 
solicitation is illegal under Rule 35(a).  As the basis for his claim, Marvel 
alleges that the State’s motion to declare him a habitual offender was 
insufficient either to identify the predicate felonies or to identify him as the 
person convicted of those predicate felonies.   
 
(4) 
Rule 35(a) permits the Superior Court to correct an illegal 
sentence “at any time.”  Relief under Rule 35(a) is available when the 
sentence imposed exceeds the statutorily-authorized limits or violates double 
                                          
 
1 Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
2 Although it appears, as Marvel points out, that the State’s motion to affirm is untimely, 
we, nevertheless, affirm the Superior Court’s judgment sua sponte in accordance with 
Rule 25(b).  Leonard v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., Del. Supr., No. 502, 1996, Berger, J. 
(Feb. 19, 1997). 
3 Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 4214(a). 
4 Marvel v. State, Del. Supr., No. 548, 2006, Berger, J. (Sept. 18, 2007). 
 
3
jeopardy.5  A sentence also is illegal when it is ambiguous with respect to 
the time and manner in which it is to be served, is internally contradictory, 
omits a term required to be imposed by statute, is uncertain as to its 
substance, or is a sentence that the judgment of conviction did not 
authorize.6  The narrow function of Rule 35(a) is to correct an illegal 
sentence, not to re-examine alleged errors occurring prior to the imposition 
of sentence.7   
 
(5) 
Because Marvel alleges error only with respect to the habitual 
offender proceedings, which occurred prior to the imposition of sentence, he 
is not entitled to relief under Rule 35(a).8  Moreover, Marvel’s claim, which 
is, in essence, a claim that his sentence was imposed in an illegal manner, is 
time-barred under Rule 35(b).9  Even if viewed on the merits, Marvel’s 
claim is unavailing, since, at the habitual offender hearing, he admitted to 
being convicted of at least three of the felonies for which he now claims the 
State presented inadequate proof.10  For all of the above reasons, we 
conclude that the Superior Court’s denial of Marvel’s Rule 35 motion must 
be affirmed.      
                                          
 
5 Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998). 
6 Id. 
7 Id. 
8 Smith v. State, Del. Supr., No. 181, 2009, Jacobs, J. (June 19, 2009). 
9 Id. 
10 Somerville v. State, 703 A.2d 629, 632 (Del. 1997). 
 
4
 
(6) 
It is manifest on the face of the opening brief that this appeal is 
without merit because the issues presented on appeal are controlled by 
settled Delaware law and, to the extent that judicial discretion is implicated, 
there was no abuse of discretion. 
 
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