Title: Williams v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 28, 2006
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: October 27, 2006

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DAVID M. WILLIAMS, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 28, 2006 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 9803018202A 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: September 22, 2006 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: October 27, 2006 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 27th day of October 2006, upon consideration of the briefs on 
appeal and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, David M. Williams, filed an appeal 
from the Superior Court’s December 15, 2005 order denying his motion for 
sentence modification pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 35.1  We 
find no merit to the appeal.  Accordingly, we affirm.   
 
(2) 
In August 1999, Williams was found guilty by a Superior Court 
jury of two counts of Attempted Burglary in the Second Degree and one 
                                          
 
1 Williams also appeals the Superior Court’s May 11, 2006 denial of his request for a free 
transcript of his 1999 sentencing hearing for purposes of the instant appeal. 
 
2
count each of Possession of Burglar’s Tools and Criminal Mischief.  He was 
sentenced as a habitual offender2 to a total of twenty-seven years of Level V 
incarceration, to be suspended after twenty-six years for probation.3  His 
sentence included twelve years of Level V time on each of his attempted 
burglary convictions.  Williams’ convictions and sentences were affirmed by 
this Court on direct appeal.4  The record reflects that, between June 2000 and 
November 
2005, 
Williams 
filed 
approximately 
ten 
motions 
for 
postconviction relief and/or sentence modification, all of which were 
unsuccessful.     
 
(3) 
In this appeal from his latest motion for sentence modification, 
Williams claims that the Superior Court improperly: a) failed to provide him 
with a transcript of his sentencing hearing; and b) sentenced him as a 
habitual offender to twelve years of Level V time on each of his attempted 
burglary convictions.  
 
(4) 
A defendant is not constitutionally entitled to a free transcript in 
connection with an appeal from the denial of a postconviction motion.5  
Moreover, the record reflects that the transcript of Williams’ sentencing 
                                          
 
2 Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 4214(a). 
3 Williams was sentenced at the same time for Possession of a Deadly Weapon by a 
Person Prohibited, Forgery in the Second Degree and Attempted Escape in the Third 
Degree, charges to which he had pleaded guilty. 
4 Williams v. State, Del. Supr., No. 507, 1999, Walsh, J. (May 30, 2000). 
5 United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1976).  
 
3
hearing was filed in the Superior Court on November 22, 1999.  In its 
answering brief, the State attached a copy of that portion of the transcript 
relevant to Williams’ habitual offender claim.  To the extent that Williams 
needed to rely on the transcript as support for his claim, it was available to 
him.6  We, therefore, conclude that Williams’ first claim is without merit.    
 
(5) 
As to Williams’ second claim, we have reviewed the relevant 
portion of the sentencing hearing transcript.  The transcript reflects that the 
State presented sufficient evidence pursuant to the habitual offender statute 
in support of its motion to have Williams declared a habitual offender.7  
Moreover, the Superior Court acted within its discretion when it accordingly 
enhanced the sentence for each of Williams’ two attempted burglary 
convictions to twelve years at Level V.8  Thus, because the Superior Court 
properly declared Williams to be a habitual offender and imposed sentences 
within the statutory limits, we conclude that Williams’ second claim also is 
without merit. 
 
 
                                          
 
6 Williams did not file a reply brief, but instead filed a letter in the Court again stating, 
without record support, that the State produced insufficient evidence to declare him a 
habitual offender.  
7 Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 4214(a); Hall v. State, 788 A.2d 118, 125-29 (Del. 2001). 
8 Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, §§ 4201(c) and 4205. 
 
4
 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice