Title: Braxton v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 342, 2004
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: April 13, 2005

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
DARYL BRAXTON,                      
           
Defendant Below- 
Appellant,   
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
     
 
 
     
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
   No. 342, 2004 
 
   Court Below---Superior Court 
   of the State of Delaware, 
   in and for New Castle County  
   Cr. ID No. 01040155591 
                      
 
Submitted: February 28, 2005 
   Decided: April  13, 2005    
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices  
 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 13th day of April 2005, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal and 
the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Daryl Braxton, filed an appeal from the 
Superior Court’s June 30, 2004 order denying his motion to correct an illegal 
sentence pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a).  We find no merit to the 
appeal.  Accordingly, we AFFIRM.   
 
(2) 
On May 16, 2001, Braxton pleaded guilty to Possession with Intent to 
Deliver Cocaine.  On the same date, the Superior Court sentenced him to 5 years 
incarceration at Level V, to be suspended immediately for the boot camp diversion 
program, followed by 2½ years of Level IV and Level III probation.  Braxton was 
 
 
-2-
to be held at Level III probation pending space availability in the boot camp 
diversion program.   
 
(3) 
In September 2001, while waiting at Level III for space in the boot 
camp diversion program, Braxton was arrested on charges of disorderly conduct 
and loitering.  In October 2001, he was arrested a second time on a charge of 
criminal impersonation and was found guilty of that charge.  Braxton was later 
charged with additional criminal offenses, all of which were dismissed.  For 
reasons that are not entirely clear, Braxton never was placed in the boot camp 
diversion program.  In May 2003, the Superior Court ordered Braxton incarcerated 
for 5 years at Level V, pursuant to its May 16, 2001 sentencing order, based upon 
his conviction of criminal impersonation. 
 
(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, not to re-examine errors occurring at the trial or other proceedings prior 
to the imposition of sentence.1  A proceeding under Rule 35 presupposes a valid 
conviction.2  Relief under Rule 35(a) is available when the sentence imposed 
exceeds the statutorily-authorized limits or violates the Double Jeopardy clause.3  
A sentence also is illegal if it is ambiguous with respect to the time and manner in 
                                                 
1 Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998). 
2 Id. 
3 Id. 
 
 
-3-
which it is to be served, is internally contradictory, omits a term required to be 
imposed by statute, is uncertain as to the substance of the sentence, or is a sentence 
that the judgment of conviction did not authorize.4 
 
(5) 
Braxton is not entitled to relief pursuant to Rule 35(a).  The Superior 
Court was required to impose a 5-year sentence for Braxton’s conviction of 
Possession with Intent to Deliver Cocaine, since Braxton had a previous drug 
conviction.5  Moreover, the Superior Court was required to impose the full 
mandatory sentence for the underlying conviction upon a finding of a probation 
violation.6  As such, Braxton’s sentence falls within the statutorily-authorized 
limits.  To the extent Braxton argues that the sentence is ambiguous or internally 
contradictory, that argument fails as well, since the terms of the sentencing order 
are clear on their face. 
 
(6) 
It appears that, while Braxton seeks relief pursuant to Rule 35(a), in 
fact, his complaint is that he was never moved to boot camp when space became 
available.  His argument appears to be that, if he had been moved to boot camp, he 
would not have violated his probation and would not have had to serve his 5-year 
Level V sentence.  We find this argument unpersuasive.  Even assuming that 
Braxton never was placed in the boot camp diversion program due to an error by 
                                                 
4 Id. 
5 Del. Code Ann. tit. 16, § 4763(a) (1) (c) (2003). 
6 Whitner v. State, 762 A.2d 18, 19 (Del. 2000); Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 6712(h) (2001). 
 
 
-4-
the State, it is Braxton, and not the State, who must bear responsibility for his 
violation of probation.  Under these circumstances, we find no error or abuse of 
discretion on the part of the Superior Court in denying Braxton’s motion for 
correction of sentence. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice