Title: Wilmer v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 87, 2011
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: April 12, 2011

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
GERALD A. WILMER, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
          Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 87, 2011 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 9603002509 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
                                      Submitted: February 28, 2011 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: April 12, 2011 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 12th day of April 2011, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief and the appellee’s motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 25(a), it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Gerald A. Wilmer, filed an appeal 
from the Superior Court’s January 24, 2011 order denying his motion for 
correction of an illegal sentence pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 
35(a).  The plaintiff-appellee, the State of Delaware, has moved to affirm the 
 
2
Superior Court’s judgment on the ground that it is manifest on the face of 
the opening brief that the appeal is without merit.1  We agree and affirm. 
 
(2) 
The record before us reflects that, in July 1997, Wilmer was 
found guilty by a Superior Court jury of Unlawful Sexual Intercourse in the 
First Degree.  He was sentenced to 30 years at Level V, to be suspended 
after 25 years for probation.  This Court affirmed Wilmer’s convictions on 
direct appeal.2  Wilmer has filed several unsuccessful motions for 
postconviction relief since that time. 
 
(3) 
In this appeal from the Superior Court’s denial of his Rule 35(a) 
motion for correction of illegal sentence, Wilmer claims that the Superior 
Court erroneously denied the motion because a) his indictment was 
improperly amended; b) the prosecutor engaged in misconduct; c) his 
attorney provided ineffective assistance; and d) his prosecution was barred 
by the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata. 
 
(4) 
The narrow function of Rule 35(a) is to permit correction of an 
illegal sentence, not to re-examine alleged errors occurring at the trial or 
other proceedings prior to the imposition of sentence.3  Under Delaware law, 
a sentence is illegal only if it exceeds the statutorily-authorized limits, 
                                                 
1 Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
2 Wilmer v. State, Del. Supr., No. 404, 1997, Walsh, J. (Mar. 6, 1998). 
3 Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998). 
 
3
violates double jeopardy, is ambiguous with respect to the time and manner 
in which it is to be served, is internally contradictory, omits a term required 
to be imposed by statute, is uncertain as to its substance or is a sentence that 
the judgment of conviction did not authorize.4 
 
(5) 
All of Wilmer’s claims relate to proceedings that took place 
prior to the imposition of his sentence.  As such, they are not properly 
asserted under Rule 35(a).  Moreover, the claims either have been or could 
have been asserted previously in one of Wilmer’s postconviction motions.  
Rule 35(a) is not a proper vehicle for re-asserting Rule 61 postconviction 
claims.  Thus, the Superior Court properly denied Wilmer’s Rule 35(a) 
motion. 
 
(6) 
It is manifest on the face of the opening brief that this appeal is 
without merit because the issues presented are controlled by settled 
Delaware law and, to the extent that judicial discretion is implicated, there 
was no abuse of discretion. 
 
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/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
                                                 
4 Id.