Title: Kelly v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 354, 2006
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: October 27, 2006

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
EDWARD J. KELLY, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 354, 2006 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 82005725DI 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: September 29, 2006 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: October 27, 2006 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 27th day of October 2006, upon consideration of the briefs on 
appeal and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Edward J. Kelly (a.k.a. Abdullah 
Karim), filed an appeal from the Superior Court’s June 12, 2006 order 
denying his motion for correction of an illegal sentence pursuant to Superior 
Court Criminal Rule 35(a).  We find no merit to the appeal.  Accordingly, 
we affirm. 
 
(2) 
In January 1983, Kelly was found guilty by a Superior Court 
jury of three counts of Robbery in the First Degree and one count each of 
Possession of a Deadly Weapon During the Commission of a Felony and 
 
2
Possession of a Deadly Weapon By a Person Prohibited.  He was sentenced 
as a habitual offender1 to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole 
and to an additional thirty-five years of Level V incarceration.  On direct 
appeal, this Court reduced one of the Robbery in the First Degree 
convictions to Attempted Robbery in the First Degree and affirmed the 
remaining convictions.2   
 
(3) 
In this appeal, Kelly claims that the State violated his 
constitutional rights by applying Section 4214(b) of the habitual offender 
statute to him and not to others with similar criminal records and, 
furthermore, that the Superior Court should not have denied his Rule 35(a) 
motion on the ground that it should have been pursued as a postconviction 
motion under Rule 61.  In support of his argument of a constitutional 
violation, Kelly states only that, “. . . after six convictions my co-defendant 
was never sentenced as a habitual criminal.”   
 
(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, violates double 
jeopardy, is ambiguous with respect to the time and manner in which it is to 
                                          
 
1 Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 4214(b). 
2 Kelly v. State, Del. Supr., No. 23, 1984, Moore, J. (July 9, 1985).  The matter was 
remanded to the Superior Court for re-sentencing solely on the first degree attempted 
robbery conviction. 
 
3
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.3 
 
(5) 
Kelly has cited insufficient factual grounds to demonstrate that 
his sentence is illegal because the habitual offender statute has been applied 
in an unconstitutional manner by the Attorney General and the Delaware 
courts.  Kelly concedes as much when he states in his reply brief that “[h]e 
would need subpoena power to review criminal records and files of the 
Attorney General, Public Defender’s Office and the [S]uperior [C]ourt, to 
prove the . . . constitutional violations.”  Because Kelly has failed to 
demonstrate that his sentence is illegal and, therefore, that he is entitled to 
relief pursuant to Rule 35(a), we conclude that the Superior Court correctly 
denied his claim.   
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED.4   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
                                          
 
3 Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998). 
4 Unitrin, Inc. v. American General Corp., 651 A.2d 1361, 1390 (Del. 1995) (This Court 
may affirm a judgment of the Superior Court on grounds different from those relied upon 
by the Superior Court).