Opinion ID: 2351818
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: This Amended Sentence Jones' Presence Required

Text: In this appeal, Jones asserts that the Superior Court erred by resentencing him outside of his presence. [2] It is well established that a defendant has a fundamental right to be present at the imposition of a final sentence following a criminal conviction. See Super.Ct.Crim.R. 43(a); Hooks v. State, Del.Supr., 429 A.2d 1312 (1981); Fullman v. State, Del.Supr., 431 A.2d 1260 (1981); Shy v. State, Del.Supr., 246 A.2d 926 (1968); Shaw v. State, Del.Supr., 282 A.2d 608 (1971); United States v. Behrens, 375 U.S. 162, 84 S.Ct. 295, 11 L.Ed.2d 224 (1963). The defendant's presence is not always necessary, however, when a sentence is corrected. Gibbs v. State, Del.Supr., 229 A.2d 502, 504 (1967); See also Super.Ct.Crim.R. 36. Compare Super.Ct.Crim.R. 35. Superior Court Criminal Rule 36, for example, permits the Superior Court to amend clerical errors in its records at any time. Accordingly, its provisions for notice to the parties are optional. United States v. Werber, 51 F.3d 342, 347 (2d Cir.1995). Therefore, the sentencing judge may decide a Rule 36 motion without notice, if a clerical mistake appears on the face of the record. Id. Rule 36 did not provide a basis for the Superior Court to correct Jones' sentences. Id. at 348. When the Superior Court initially sentenced Jones, it erroneously imposed separate sentences for Jones' status of being an habitual offender and for the trafficking offense. Gibbs v. State, 58 Del. 256, 208 A.2d 306 (1965). An amendment was necessary to correct an error of law when Jones' sentence was pronounced, not a clerical mistake in transcription. United States v. Werber, 51 F.3d at 348. Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a) permits the Superior Court to correct an illegal sentence at any time. The Superior Court's amended sentence constituted a substantive legal change in Jones' sentence, rather than a mere correction to reflect the actual sentence imposed in Jones' presence in open court. Compare Super.Ct.Crim.R. 36. Moreover, the proper legal application of the habitual offender statute gave the Superior Court the discretion to impose a more severe penalty on Jones for the trafficking offense, which constituted his fourth felony conviction. 11 Del.C. § 4214(a). See Fullman v. State, Del.Supr., 431 A.2d 1260, 1264 (1981). Compare Hooks v. State, Del.Supr., 429 A.2d 1312 (1981). Therefore, Jones had a right to be present when the amended sentence was imposed. Super.Ct.Crim.R. 43(a). See Fullman v. State, 431 A.2d at 1264-65; Shaw v. State, Del.Supr., 282 A.2d 608 (1971); United States v. Behrens, 375 U.S. 162, 84 S.Ct. 295, 11 L.Ed.2d 224 (1963). Compare Hooks v. State, Del.Supr., 429 A.2d 1312 (1981); Shy v. State, Del.Supr., 246 A.2d 926 (1968).