Title: Webb v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 288, 2007
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: September 28, 2007

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
WILLIAM JOSEPH WEBB, JR., 
 
Petitioner Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Respondent Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 288, 2007 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 9702013762 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: July 16, 2007 
  Decided: September 28, 2007 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 28th day of September 2007, upon consideration of the 
appellant’s opening brief, the State’s motion to affirm, and the record below, 
it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, William Joseph Webb, Jr., filed this appeal from 
the Superior Court’s order denying his motion for correction of illegal 
sentence.  Webb sought relief on the ground that his original 1997 sentence, 
and subsequent VOP sentence, were illegal and were the product of 
ineffective assistance of counsel. The State has moved to affirm the Superior 
Court’s judgment on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Webb’s 
opening brief that the appeal is without merit.  We agree and affirm.   
 
 
-2-
(2) 
The record reflects that Webb pleaded guilty to Burglary in the 
Second Degree and was sentenced in May 1997 to eight years at Level V 
imprisonment, to be suspended after serving one year for seven years of 
probation.  Thereafter, in June 2000, the Superior Court found him in 
violation of the terms of his probationary sentence and reimposed a period of 
incarceration.  In the matter on appeal, Webb filed a motion in March 2007 
seeking correction of an illegal sentence under Superior Court Criminal Rule 
35(a).  The Superior Court denied the motion, and this appeal ensued. 
 
(3) 
Although Webb enumerates four issues in his opening brief, the 
gist of his complaint is that the Superior Court erroneously sentenced him in 
1997 to eight years in prison suspended after serving one year when, in fact, 
the guilty plea agreement, entered into pursuant to Superior Court Rule 
11(e)(1)(C), provided for an agreed-to sentence of one year in prison 
“followed by probation.”  Webb argues that because his original sentence 
was ambiguous and thus illegal, his subsequent VOP sentence also is illegal. 
 
(4) 
After careful consideration, we find no merit to Webb’s appeal.  
Although Webb contends that his 1997 sentence is illegal because it is 
ambiguous, we find nothing ambiguous about the Superior Court’s 
imposition of an eight-year prison term, which was to be suspended after 
 
 
-3-
Webb served one year.  Moreover, the sentence was within the statutory 
range of authorized sentences for Burglary in the Second Degree.1  Webb’s 
real complaint is not that his sentence is illegal, but that the sentence was 
imposed in an illegal manner because it allegedly did not comply with the 
sentence he agreed to in his plea agreement.  Webb previously raised this 
argument in an unsuccessful postconviction petition under Rule 61.2  Webb 
cannot seek to relitigate this same issue simply by filing his motion as a 
motion for correction of illegal sentence under Rule 35(a).3 
(5) 
Moreover, the function of a Rule 35(a) motion is very narrow.4  
Rule 35(a) only reaches challenges to the sentence itself and may not be 
used to re-examine errors occurring in the proceedings prior to the 
imposition of sentence.5  A motion seeking the correction of a sentence 
imposed in an illegal manner is subject to the 90-day limitation period in 
Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b).6  Accordingly, we find no error in the 
                                                 
1 See Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998). 
2 Webb v. State, 2006 WL 2559854 (Del. Super. Aug. 29, 2006), aff’d, 2006 WL 
3613635 (Del. Dec. 12, 2006). 
3 Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d at 578. 
4 Id. 
5 Id.  
6 See Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(a). 
 
 
-4-
Superior Court’s denial of Webb’s motion for correction of sentence under 
Rule 35(a). 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED.   
BY THE COURT: 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
Justice