Title: Connelly v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 297, 2013
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: October 9, 2013

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
BRIAN D. CONNELLY, 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§    No. 297, 2013 
 
 
Defendant Below,  
§ 
 
 
Appellant,  
 
§    Court Below—Superior Court of 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§    the State of Delaware, in and for 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§    New Castle County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§    Cr. ID No. 1005011566 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
§ 
 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
§ 
 
Submitted: July 30, 2013 
Decided: 
October 9, 2013 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 9th day of October 2013, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief and the motion to affirm filed by the appellee, State of 
Delaware, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) The appellant, Brian D. Connelly, appeals from the Superior 
Court’s denial of his motion for correction of sentence.  The appellee, State 
of Delaware, moves to affirm the judgment of the Superior Court on the 
ground that it is manifest on the face of Connelly’s opening brief that his 
appeal is without merit.  We agree and affirm. 
(2) The record reflects that Connelly pled guilty in March 2011 to 
Rape in the Second Degree and Burglary in the Second Degree.  Connelly 
2 
 
was sentenced in June 2011 after a presentence investigation.  For the rape 
conviction, the Superior Court imposed twenty years at Level V, ten years 
minimum mandatory, suspended after fourteen years for six years at Level 
IV, suspended after six months for probation.  For the burglary conviction, 
the Superior Court imposed eight years at Level V suspended after one year 
mandatory for probation.  Connelly did not appeal. 
(3) In April 2013, Connelly filed a motion for correction of sentence 
under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a) (“Rule 35(a)”).  Connelly claimed 
that his sentence for second degree rape was illegal because the Superior 
Court failed to set forth on the record its reasons for exceeding the 
sentencing guidelines.  By order dated May 9, 2013, the Superior Court 
denied Connelly’s motion on the basis that the court had, in fact, identified 
two aggravating factors at sentencing—the “heinous nature of the crime,” 
and the “lifetime of trauma caused to the victim.”  This appeal followed. 
(4) Having carefully considered the parties’ positions, the Court has 
concluded that the denial of Connelly’s motion for correction of sentence 
should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons provided in the 
Superior Court’s May 9, 2013 order.  We also affirm the Superior Court’s 
3 
 
denial of relief on the alternative basis that Connelly’s motion for correction 
of sentence was untimely under Rule 35(a).* 
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/ Jack B. Jacobs 
 
 
 
 
 
 
       Justice 
                                          
 
* See DEL. SUPER. CT. CRIM. R. 35(a) (providing that a motion to correct a sentence 
imposed in an illegal manner must be filed within the time limit set forth in Rule 35(b), 
i.e., “within 90 days after the sentence is imposed”).