Title: Blanchfield v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 342, 2005
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: November 10, 2005

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
CHARLES A. BLANCHFIELD, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 342, 2005 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr.A. Nos. IN89-10-0119 thru  
§                                    0121 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: September 12, 2005 
 
 
 
 
Decided:    November 10, 2005 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 10th day of November 2005, upon consideration of the 
appellant’s opening brief, the appellee’s motion to affirm pursuant to 
Supreme Court Rule 25(a), and the appellant’s response to the motion to 
affirm,1 it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Charles A. Blanchfield, filed an 
appeal from the Superior Court’s July 15, 2005 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 
                                                 
1 This Court granted the appellant’s motion for leave to respond to the State’s motion to 
affirm.  Supr. Ct. R. 25(a) (iii).   
 
2
judgment of the Superior Court on the ground that it is manifest on the face 
of Blanchfield’s opening brief that the appeal is without merit.  We agree 
and affirm.   
 
(2) 
In June 1990, Blanchfield pleaded guilty to two counts of 
Unlawful Sexual Intercourse in the Third Degree and one count of Burglary 
in the Second Degree.  He was sentenced to a total of 35 years incarceration 
at Level V.  Blanchfield subsequently filed a motion for postconviction 
relief, which was denied by the Superior Court.  This Court affirmed the 
Superior Court’s judgment on appeal.2 
 
(3) 
In this appeal, Blanchfield claims that: a) his sentences are 
illegal because the State did not prove that he had the requisite intent to 
commit the crimes with which he was charged; and b) the Superior Court 
abused its discretion when it denied his motion for correction of an illegal 
sentence.  
 
(4) 
Rule 35(a) permits the Superior Court to correct an illegal 
sentence “at any time.”  The narrow function of Rule 35 is to permit 
correction of an illegal sentence, however, not to re-examine errors that may 
have occurred during proceedings before the imposition of sentence.3  A 
                                                 
2 Blanchfield v. State, Del. Supr., No. 97, 1994, Veasey, C.J. (Oct. 18, 1994). 
3 Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998). 
 
3
proceeding under Rule 35 presupposes a valid conviction.4  Relief under 
Rule 35(a) is available when the sentence imposed exceeds the statutorily 
authorized limits, violates double jeopardy, 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.5  
 
(5) 
Blanchfield is not entitled to relief under Rule 35(a).  He does 
not argue that his sentences exceed the statutorily authorized limit, violate 
double jeopardy or are ambiguous or erroneous in any respect.  Rather, his 
complaint centers on the proceedings prior to the imposition of his 
sentences, which is prohibited under Rule 35.  The transcript of 
Blanchfield’s plea colloquy reflects that he entered a knowing and voluntary 
plea of guilty to the charges of unlawful sexual intercourse and burglary.  In 
the absence of a trial, the State has no obligation to prove intent, which 
renders Blanchfield’s claim factually baseless.  Under these circumstances, 
there was no abuse of discretion on the part of the Superior Court in denying 
Blanchfield’s claim.   
 
(6) 
It is manifest on the face of Blanchfield’s opening brief that this 
appeal is without merit because the issues presented on appeal are controlled 
                                                 
4 Id.  
5 Id. 
 
4
by settled Delaware law and, to the extent that judicial discretion is 
implicated, clearly there was no abuse of discretion. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Supreme 
Court Rule 25(a), the State of Delaware’s motion to affirm is GRANTED.  
The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs  
 
 
 
 
                                                 Justice