Title: Elliott v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 591, 2003
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: June 3, 2004

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
CURTIS G. ELLIOTT,  
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 591, 2003 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below--Superior Court  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware, in and 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
for Sussex County in Cr. A.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. PS00-04-0556. 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
Def. ID No. 0004009247 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: March 1, 2004 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
June 3, 2003 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 3rd day of June 2004, 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 appellant, Curtis G. Elliott, filed an appeal from the 
Superior Court's November 25, 2003 order that denied his motion for 
correction of sentence.  The appellee, State of Delaware, has moved to 
affirm the judgment of the Superior Court on the ground that it is manifest 
on the face of Elliott's opening brief that the appeal is without merit.  We 
agree and affirm. 
 
2
(2) 
In October 2000, Elliott pleaded guilty to Assault in the Second 
Degree.  After a presentence investigation, Elliott was sentenced, on 
December 8, 2000, to eight years at Level V, suspended after four years, for 
decreasing levels of probation.  At the sentencing hearing, the Superior 
Court ordered that Elliott was to complete the Key Program.  The sentence 
order that was later filed and sent to Elliott, however, omitted the Key 
Program requirement.  Nonetheless, according to Elliott, he started the Key 
Program in September 2002 and was terminated from the Program in 
November 2002 for misbehavior. 
(3) 
In January 2001, Elliott requested modification of his sentence.  
Elliott’s request was denied by the Superior Court.  Elliott's subsequent 
requests for sentence modification were also denied.  Elliott moved for 
postconviction relief on April 17, 2001, May 10, 2001, and October 5, 2001.  
Each of Elliott’s applications was denied by the Superior Court.  On appeal 
from the second and third denials of postconviction relief, this Court 
affirmed.1 
(4) 
In May 2003, Elliott requested that the Superior Court correct 
his sentence to reflect that he was required to complete the Key Program.  
According to Elliott, he needed a corrected sentence order to reapply to the 
                                          
 
1 See Elliott v. State, 2001 WL 1381235 (Del. Supr.); Elliott v. State, 2002 WL 200959 
(Del. Supr.).  
 
3
Program.  In support of his request, Elliott correctly pointed out that the Key 
Program was shown as a "special condition" of his sentence on the Judicial 
Action Form dated December 8, 2000.  By amended sentence order dated 
June 5, 2003, the Superior Court corrected Elliott's sentence, as he had 
requested, to accurately reflect that the Key Program was a condition of his 
sentence. 
(5) 
In November 2003, Elliott moved for correction of his sentence 
pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a).2  Elliott claimed that the 
June 5, 2003 corrected sentence order caused the Department of Correction 
to extend his short term release date by four years.  According to Elliott, the 
change in his short term release date improperly enhanced his sentence.  The 
Superior Court denied Elliott's motion on November 25, 2003.  This appeal 
followed. 
(6) 
The Superior Court did not err when it denied Elliott's motion 
for correction of sentence.  Superior Court Criminal Rule 36 empowers the 
Superior Court to correct clerical mistakes or errors in the record resulting 
from “oversight or omission.”  In this case, the Superior Court’s December 
8, 2000 sentence order inadvertently omitted the Key Program as a condition 
                                          
 
2 Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a) provides that “[t]he court may correct an illegal 
sentence at any time and may correct a sentence imposed in an illegal manner within the 
time provided herein for the reduction of sentence.” 
 
4
of Elliott’s sentence.3  The June 5, 2003 corrected sentence order that placed 
Elliott at Level V for eight years, suspended after four years at Level V and 
upon the successful completion of Level V Key Program, reflected the 
actual sentence that was imposed on December 8, 2000, and was not a 
substantive legal change in Elliott’s sentence.4   
(7) 
It is manifest on the face of Elliott's opening brief that this 
appeal is without merit.  The issues presented on appeal are controlled by 
settled Delaware law.  To the extent that judicial discretion is implicated, 
clearly there was no abuse of discretion. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Supreme 
Court Rule 25(a), the appellee’s motion to affirm is GRANTED.  The 
judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Randy J. Holland  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                          
 
3In addition to the Judicial Action Form that lists the Key Program as a condition of 
Elliott’s sentence, the sentencing transcript clearly demonstrates that the parties 
understood, and the sentencing judge intended and actually imposed, the Key Program as 
a condition of the sentence. 
4 Guyer v. State, 453 A.2d 462, 464 (Del. 1982); Gibbs v. State, 229 A.2d 502, 504 (Del. 
1967).