Title: Melton v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 109, 2013
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: August 22, 2013

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JAMES E. MELTON,  
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 109, 2013 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 1107021277 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: July 8, 2013 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
August 22, 2013 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 22nd day of August 2013, 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, James E. Melton, appeals from the 
Superior Court’s February 27, 2013 order that denied his motion for 
reargument of its January 3, 2013 order denying Melton’s motion for 
correction of illegal sentence pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 35.  
The plaintiff-appellee, the State of Delaware, moves 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) The record before us reflects that, in 2011, Melton was indicted 
on charges of Trafficking in Cocaine, Possession of a Firearm During the 
Commission of a Felony, Possession With Intent to Deliver Cocaine, 
Possession of a Firearm By a Person Prohibited, Possession of a Deadly 
Weapon By a Person Prohibited, Maintaining a Dwelling for Keeping a 
Controlled Substance, Possession of Drug Paraphernalia and Failure to Stop 
at a Red Light.  Melton entered pleas of guilty to Trafficking in Cocaine, 
Possession With Intent to Deliver Cocaine, and Possession of a Firearm By a 
Person Prohibited.  The Superior Court granted the State’s motion to have 
Melton declared a habitual offender and sentenced him to a total of 17 years 
at Level V, to be suspended after 10 years for decreasing levels of 
supervision.  Melton did not file a direct appeal. 
 
(3) In November 2012, Melton filed a motion for correction of his 
allegedly illegal sentence.  The Superior Court denied the motion on January 
3, 2013.  Melton’s subsequent motion for reargument was denied by the 
Superior Court on February 27, 2013.  This appeal followed. 
                                                 
1 SUPR. CT. R. 25(a). 
 
3
 
(4) In his appeal, Melton claims that the Superior Court erred as a 
matter of law when it denied his motion for correction of illegal sentence as 
well as his motion for reargument, because his sentences for Trafficking in 
Cocaine and Possession With Intent to Deliver Cocaine violate double 
jeopardy and are, therefore, illegal. 
 
(5) Because Melton pleaded guilty to the charges against him, he has 
waived any claim of a double jeopardy violation.2  In any case, Melton’s 
claim that his two drug sentences violate double jeopardy is legally 
meritless.  This Court has ruled that, under Blockburger v. United States,3 a 
defendant may be charged with, and sentenced for, Trafficking in Cocaine 
and Possession With Intent to Deliver Cocaine without violating double 
jeopardy, because each offense contains an element of proof not present in 
the other, even though the offenses may arise out of the same incident.4  
Melton’s claim of a double jeopardy violation is unavailing.   
 
(6) The proper purpose of a motion for reargument is to request the 
trial court to reconsider whether it overlooked an applicable legal precedent 
or misapprehended the law or the facts in such a way as to affect the 
                                                 
2 Bowers v. State, Del. Supr., No. 666, 2006, Steele, C.J. (Aug. 20, 2007) (citing Downer 
v. State, 543 A.2d 309, 312-13 (Del. 1988)). 
3 284 U.S. 299 (1932). 
4 State v. Skyers, 560 A.2d 1052, 1054 (Del. 1989). 
 
4
outcome of the case.5  This Court reviews a trial court’s denial of a motion 
for reargument for abuse of discretion.6  In the absence of any showing by 
Melton that the Superior Court overlooked a legal precedent or 
misapprehended the facts or the law, we conclude that that there was no 
abuse of discretion on the part of the Superior Court in denying Melton’s 
motion for reargument.   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’s motion to 
affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
       Justice 
 
                                                 
5 Trump v. State, 2005 WL 583749 (Del. Mar. 9, 2005) (citing Hessler, Inc. v. Farrell, 
260 A.2d 701, 702 (Del. 1969)). 
6 Parker v. State, 2001 WL 213389 (Del. Feb. 26, 2001).