Title: Cobb v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 251, 2013
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: August 1, 2013

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
CHARLES COBB, 
 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 251, 2013 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 30009343DI 
§   
§ 
 
Submitted: July 10, 2013 
Decided: 
August 1, 2013 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 1st day of August 2013, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief, the State’s motion to affirm, and the record on appeal, it 
appears to the Court that: 
(1) The appellant, Charles Cobb, filed this appeal from the Superior 
Court’s denial of his motion for correction of sentence.  The State has filed a 
motion to affirm the judgment below on the ground that it is manifest on the 
face of Cobb’s opening brief that his appeal is without merit.  We agree and 
affirm.  
(2) In his motion for correction of sentence filed in the Superior 
Court, Cobb argued that the Board of Parole erred in September 2001 when 
 
2
it ordered, following a violation of parole hearing, that Cobb forfeited his 
right to all good time previously earned.  Cobb contended that much of the 
good time that was ordered to be forfeited had been earned on a 1992 
sentence that he had fully served.  Cobb contends that it was illegal for the 
Board of Parole to forfeit that good time.  He raises the same argument on 
appeal. 
(3) A motion for correction of illegal sentence under Superior Court 
Criminal Rule 35(a), however, is not an appropriate method to seek the 
Superior Court’s review of the actions of the Board of Parole.  The narrow 
function of a motion under Rule 35(a) is to review the legality of the 
sentence imposed by the trial court.1  It provides no basis for review of 
decisions by the Board of Parole.  Accordingly, we find no error in the 
Superior Court’s denial of Cobb’s motion for correction of illegal sentence, 
although we affirm on independent and alternative grounds.2 
 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs 
 
 
 
 
 
 
       Justice 
                                                 
1 Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998). 
2 Mathis v. State, 2010 WL 2197625 (Del. June 2, 2010).