Title: Cropper v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 369, 2006
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: October 2, 2006

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DWAYNE CROPPER, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 369, 2006 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 9601010152 
§  
§ 
 
Submitted:  August 16, 2006 
Decided:  October 2, 2006 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 2nd day of October 2006, 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 defendant-appellant, Dwayne Cropper, filed this appeal 
from the Superior Court’s denial of his motion for correction of sentence 
under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a).  The State has moved to affirm 
the Superior Court’s judgment on the ground that it is manifest on the face 
of Cropper’s opening brief that his appeal is without merit.  We agree and 
affirm. 
 
 
-2-
(2) 
The record reflects that Cropper was sentenced as an habitual 
offender in February 1999 following his convictions for attempted first 
degree murder and possession of a deadly weapon during the commission of 
a felony.  His convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal.1  
Since then, Cropper has filed several unsuccessful petitions seeking various 
forms of postconviction relief.2   
(3) 
In June 2006, Cropper filed his latest petition, which requested 
that the Superior Court correct his illegal sentence pursuant to Delaware 
Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a).  Cropper asserted that his sentence was 
illegal because two of his prior felony convictions, which were considered 
by the Superior Court in sentencing him as an habitual offender, were not 
valid predicate felonies under 11 Del. C. § 4214(b).  Thus, Cropper argued, 
his habitual offender sentence was illegal.  The Superior Court summarily 
denied Cropper’s motion, and this appeal followed. 
(4) 
Contrary to Cropper’s assertion, the record reflects that he was 
sentenced as an habitual offender pursuant to the provisions of 11 Del. C. § 
4214(a), not § 4214(b).  Any felony conviction can qualify as a predicate 
                                                 
1 Cropper v. State, 2000 WL 139992 (Del. Jan. 21, 2000). 
2 See, e.g., Cropper v. State, 2001 WL 1636542 (Del. Dec. 10, 2001). 
 
 
-3-
felony under § 4214(a).3  Accordingly, there was no merit to Cropper’s 
assertion that his prior felony convictions were not listed as predicate 
felonies under § 4214(b).  Thus, the Superior Court did not err in summarily 
denying his motion for correction of sentence.   
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/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
                                                 
3 Parker v. State, 2000 WL 1152406 (Del. July 26, 2000).