Title: Brinkley v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 476, 2017
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: July 10, 2018

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JERMAINE D. BRINKLEY, 
 
§  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 476, 2017 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below:  Superior Court of the  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
State of Delaware 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
Cr. ID No. 1412017874 (K) 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: May 1, 2018 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
July 10, 2018 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
(1) 
This appeal is from the Superior Court’s order of October 23, 2017 
denying the appellant’s motion for correction of sentence.  The Court has considered 
the appellant’s opening brief, the appellee’s motion to affirm, and the Superior Court 
record—including the transcript of the appellant’s guilty plea and sentencing—and 
has concluded that the Superior Court’s judgment should be affirmed. 
 
(2) 
On June 30, 2016, the appellant, Jermaine Brinkley, pled guilty to eight 
criminal offenses and was sentenced.  The sentence included a total minimum 
mandatory penalty of ten years of Level V incarceration—two years for each of the 
 
2 
 
five class B felony offenses to which Brinkley pled guilty.1  Brinkley did not appeal 
the sentence. 
 
(3) 
In September 2017, Brinkley filed a motion for correction of sentence 
asking the Superior Court to issue an order “clarifying” that the five two-year terms 
of minimum mandatory incarceration were meant to be served concurrently.  In 
support of his request, Brinkley attached a copy of the June 30 automated sentence 
order, which stated “ALL SENTENCES OF CONFINEMENT SHALL RUN 
CONCURRENT.”   
 
 
(4) 
By corrected sentence order dated October 17, 2017, the Superior Court 
deleted the statement “ALL SENTENCES OF CONFINEMENT SHALL RUN 
CONCURRENT” from the June 30 automated sentence order.  After correcting the 
June 30 sentence order, the Superior Court denied Brinkley’s sentence correction 
motion on the basis that the corrected sentence order accurately reflected the 
sentence imposed on June 30, 2016. This appeal followed. 
 
 
(5) 
The Superior Court is authorized to correct a clerical error in an 
automated sentence order to make the record conform to the actual sentence 
imposed.2  In this case, it is clear from the record that the Superior Court sentenced 
Brinkley to five consecutive two-year terms of minimum-mandatory Level V 
                                          
 
1 11 Del. C. § 4205(b), (d). 
2 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 36; Gibbs v. State, 229 A.2d 502, 504 (Del. 1967).                  
 
3 
 
incarceration for his class B felony convictions.3  The Superior Court’s corrected 
sentence order did not illegally enhance the sentence, as Brinkley would have this 
Court conclude.  
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is 
GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT:  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice  
 
 
                                          
 
3 See Guilty Plea and Sentencing Tr. at 10, 12, 17, 22–24 (June 30, 2016).  The record suggests 
that the clerical error may have occurred because the parties requested—and the Superior Court 
agreed—that the sentence in this case should run concurrently with a sentence imposed on March 
15, 2015 in another of Brinkley’s cases.  See id. at 5, 11, 24.