Opinion ID: 2293324
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Weber's Sentencing as a Habitual Offender.[49]

Text: Weber claims that the sentencing judge violated his right to due process by sentencing him as a habitual offender based, in part, on an earlier Forgery conviction. [50] In 2001, a jury convicted Weber on Second Degree Forgery, for which he received a sentence of thirty days imprisonment. Weber appealed directly to this Court. [51] We rejected that appeal on jurisdictional grounds because Weber's sentence did not include a prison term over thirty days or a fine over $100. [52] Weber now argues that, because he had no right to appeal, his forgery conviction does not qualify as a predicate offense under 11 Del. C. § 4214(a). Generally, we review habitual offender sentencing decisions for an abuse of discretion. [53] Here, however, Weber raises an issue of first impression. We review this question of law de novo. [54] Under 11 Del. C. § 4214(a), after a fourth felony conviction a defendant may be declared a habitual offender and given an enhanced sentence. Section 4214(a) provides: Any person who has been 3 times convicted of a felony . . . under the laws of this State, and/or any other state, United States or any territory of the United States, and who shall thereafter be convicted of a subsequent felony of this State is declared to be an habitual criminal, and the court in which such 4th or subsequent conviction is had, in imposing sentence, may in its discretion, impose a sentence of up to life imprisonment upon the person so convicted. The Delaware Criminal Code defines a conviction as [a] verdict of guilty by the trier of fact, whether judge or jury, or a plea of guilty or plea of nolo contendere accepted by the court. [55] As used in its general and popular sense, a conviction is the establishment of guilt independent of judgment and sentence. [56] The habitual offender statute does not expressly require that a predicate conviction be final or appealable to enhance a sentence. The State argues that conviction simply means the establishment of guilt, and that it is immaterial that Weber could not appeal his Forgery conviction. The State relies on Pryor v. State [57] , where the defendant received an enhanced sentence under the State's drug offender recidivism statute. [58] Pryor received this sentence based on an earlier offense for which the defendant had pled guilty but had not been sentenced. [59] In Pryor, we upheld the sentencing enhancement, despite the fact that Pryor was unable to appeal the predicate offense (there is no right to appeal a conviction before sentencing). [60] Pryor is distinguishable, however, because that defendant could have appealed his predicate offense after being sentenced on that charge, and if the appeal was successful, the enhanced sentence would be vacated. We find Pryor helpful but not determinative. The State further argues that Weber had multiple opportunities to attack his Forgery conviction and that his failure to do so amounts to a procedural default that bars Weber from now attacking his prior conviction. There is a split of authority among the federal Circuit Courts on whether a defendant facing an enhanced sentence may collaterally attack his earlier convictions. [61] The State claims that Weber could have sought: post conviction relief; a writ of habeas corpus; or a writ of certiorari to challenge his Forgery conviction. In actuality, only post conviction relief or a writ of certiorari were available to Weber. [62] Weber could have petitioned for post conviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35, which provides that the Superior Court may correct an illegal sentence at any time. . ., [63] Weber has not explained why he did not seek Rule 35 relief. Had Weber sought Rule 35 relief and been denied, that denial would have been appealable to this Court. [64] Weber also could have sought certiorari review of his Forgery conviction. The scope of certiorari review is limited but includes an examination of jurisdiction, errors of law, and mistakes on the face of the record. [65] Weber's failure to pursue Rule 35 relief from his Forgery conviction or to seek a writ of certiorari patently detracts from Weber's due process claims. It is clear that the United States Constitution does not guarantee a right to appeal a state law criminal conviction. [66] The United States Supreme Court, however, has specifically held that the States must afford prisoners some `clearly defined method by which they may raise claims of denial of federal rights.' [67] Although the United States Supreme Court has held that the right to appellate review of predicate offenses is not required to enhance a sentence under a recidivism statute, [68] that Court has not made a similar pronouncement with respect to sentencing enhancements. Rather, the Court currently appears to rely on the numerous opportunities to challenge the constitutionality of [predicate] convictions [in state courts] as sufficient to protect the due process rights of criminal defendants. [69] Here, Weber could have asserted his federal rights in State Court through a motion for post conviction relief or a writ of certiorari. We conclude that Weber's 2001 conviction for Forgery Second is a conviction for purposes of the habitual offender statute, and that the unavailability of a direct appeal does not change this result.