Court Opinion

ID: 9918331
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-12 17:02:41.516341+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:02:36.194705
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

ALEX JUSTICE,                            §
                                         §
       Defendant Below,                  § No. 324, 2023
       Appellant,                        §
                                         § Court Below—Superior Court
       v.                                § of the State of Delaware
                                         §
STATE OF DELAWARE,                       § Cr. ID No. 1203006756 (S)
                                         §
       Appellee.                         §

                          Submitted: November 9, 2023
                          Decided:   January 11, 2024

                                   ORDER

Before VALIHURA, TRAYNOR, and LEGROW, Justices.

      After consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the appellee’s motion to

affirm and the record on appeal, it appears to the Court that:

      (1)    The appellant, Alex Justice, filed this appeal from the Superior Court’s

denial of his motion for correction of illegal sentence. The State of Delaware has

filed a motion to affirm the judgment below on the ground that it is manifest on the

face of Justice’s opening brief that his appeal is without merit. We agree and affirm.

      (2)    In April 2012, a grand jury indicted Justice on eight counts of sex

offender unlawful sexual conduct against a child under 11 Del C. § 777A. Seven

counts were based on the underlying sexual offense of second-degree rape (“USC

Second-Degree Rape”) and one count was based on the underlying sexual offense
of second-degree unlawful sexual contact. The charges arose from Justice’s sexual

contact with a thirteen-year old child in March 2012.

       (3)     The trial was bifurcated as required by Monceaux v. State.1 After a jury

trial on whether Justice was guilty of second-degree rape and unlawful sexual

contact and a bench trial on whether Justice was guilty of being a sex offender at the

time of the crimes, Justice was convicted of two counts of sex offender unlawful

sexual conduct against a child (one count based on second-degree rape and one count

based on second-degree unlawful sexual contact) and acquitted on the remaining

counts. After that, the Superior Court granted the State’s petition to declare Justice

a habitual offender under 11 Del. C. § 4214(a) as to the USC-Second Degree Rape

conviction and sentenced Justice as follows: (i) for USC Second-Degree Rape, life

imprisonment under Section 4214(a); and (ii) for sex offender unlawful sexual

conduct against a child based on second-degree unlawful sexual contact, five years

of Level V incarceration, suspended for Level III probation. This Court affirmed

the Superior Court’s judgment on direct appeal.2

       (4)     In 2015 and 2022, the Superior Court denied Justice’s motions for

postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.3 In 2020, the Superior

1
  51 A.3d 474 (Del. 2012).
2
  Justice v. State, 2013 WL 3722357 (Del. July 11, 2013).
3
  Justice v. State, 2016 WL 2585918 (Del. May 2, 2016) (affirming the Superior Court’s denial of
first motion for postconviction relief); Justice v. State, 2022 WL 2438814 (Del. Super. Ct. July 1,
2022) (denying second motion for postconviction relief).

                                                2
Court denied Justice’s pro se motion for a certificate of eligibility under Section

4214(f).

       (5)    On April 12, 2023, Justice filed a motion for correction of illegal

sentence based on alleged defects in the indictment. The Superior Court denied the

motion. On July 31, 2023, Justice filed a motion for correction of illegal sentence

based on alleged double-jeopardy violations. The Superior Court returned the

motion to Justice on the basis that it was repetitive under Superior Court Criminal

Rule 35(b). On August 9, 2023, Justice filed a letter requesting that the Superior

Court treat his July 31, 2023 motion as a motion for correction of illegal sentence

under Rule 35(a) instead of a repetitive motion for sentence reduction under Rule

35(b). The Superior Court treated the letter as a motion for correction of illegal

sentence and denied it. This appeal followed.

       (6)    We review the denial of a motion for sentence correction for abuse of

discretion.4 We review questions of law de novo.5 A sentence is illegal if it exceeds

statutory limits, 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.6

4
  Fountain v. State, 2014 WL 4102069, at *1 (Del. Aug. 19, 2014).
5
  Id.
6
  Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998).

                                              3
          (7)    In his opening brief, Justice argues that the Superior Court erred in

denying his motion for correction of illegal sentence without addressing his claims

that his sentence was illegal. He contends that his life sentence for USC Second-

Degree Rape is illegal because: (i) references to different ages of a child in §§ 777A

and 4205A make the meaning of “child” ambiguous; and (ii) it was based on the age

of the victim as well as his status as a registered sex offender and habitual offender

in violation of double-jeopardy principles. These contentions are without merit.

          (8)    At the time of Justice’s crimes in March 2012, the relevant portions of

the statutes implicated by Justice’s arguments provided:

          § 772. Rape in the second degree; class B felony

          (a) A person is guilty of rape in the second degree when the person:

          (1) Intentionally engages in sexual intercourse with another person, and
          the intercourse occurs without the victim’s consent….

          (b) Nothing in this section shall preclude a separate charge, conviction
          and sentence for any other crime set forth in this title, or in the Delaware
          Code.

          (c) Notwithstanding any provision of this title to the contrary, the
          minimum sentence for a person convicted of rape in the second degree
          in violation of this section shall be 10 years at Level V.7

          § 777A. Sex offender unlawful sexual conduct against a child

           (a) A sex offender who knowingly commits any sexual offense against
          a child is guilty of sex offender unlawful sexual conduct against a child.

7
    11 Del. C. § 772 (effective since June 30, 2010).

                                                   4
         (b) For purposes of this section, “sex offender” means as defined in §
         4121 of this title.

         (c) For purposes of this section, the term “sexual offense” shall mean
         any offense designated as a sexual offense by § 761(i) of this title.8

         (d) For purposes of this section, “child” means any individual who has
         not reached that child’s eighteenth birthday….

         (e) Sex offender unlawful sexual conduct against a child shall be
         punished as follows….

         (2) If the underlying sexual offense is a class C, D, E, F, or G felony,
         the crime of sex offender unlawful sexual conduct against a child shall
         be a felony 1 grade higher than the underlying offense except where the
         child against whom a sexual offense is committed is a child younger
         than 12 years of age in which case the crime of sex offender unlawful
         sexual conduct against a child shall be a class B felony….

         (5) If the underlying sexual offense is a class A or B felony, the crime
         of sex offender unlawful sexual conduct against a child shall be the
         same grade as the underlying offense, and the minimum sentence of
         imprisonment required for the underlying offense shall be doubled.9

         § 4205A. Additional penalty for serious sex offenders or pedophile
         offenders.

         (a) Notwithstanding any provision of this chapter or any other laws
         to the contrary, a defendant convicted of any crime set forth in §
         771(a)(2), § 772, § 773, § 777, § 777A, § 778(1) or (2) of this title shall
         be sentenced to not less than 25 years up to life imprisonment to be
         served at Level V if:

         (1) The defendant has previously been convicted or adjudicated
         delinquent of any sex offense set forth in this title and classified as a
         class A or B felony, or any similar offense under the laws of another
         state, the United States or any territory thereof; or

8
    Second-degree rape under § 772 is one of the designated sexual offenses.
9
    11 Del. C. § 777A (effective June 30, 2010 to September 2, 2015).

                                                 5
       (2) The victim of the instant offense is a child less than 14 years of
       age….10

       § 4214. Habitual criminal; life sentence
       (a) Any person who has been 3 times convicted of a felony…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.
       Notwithstanding any provision of this title to the contrary, any person
       sentenced pursuant to this subsection shall receive a minimum sentence
       which shall not be less than the statutory maximum penalty provided
       elsewhere in this title for the 4th or subsequent felony which forms the
       basis of the State’s petition to have the person declared to be an habitual
       criminal except that this minimum provision shall apply only when the
       4th or subsequent felony is a Title 11 violent felony, as defined in §
       4201(c) of this title….11

       (9)    Contrary to Justice’s contentions, the references to different ages of a

child in §§ 777A and 4205A that he cites do not make the meaning of “child”

ambiguous. Section 777A(e) increases felony grades for sexual offenses against

younger child victims. For example, if the underlying sexual offense is a class G

felony (which has a sentencing range of up to two years of Level V incarceration

under § 4205) and the child victim is twelve or older, then the crime of sex offender

conduct is increased to a class F felony (which has a sentencing range of up to three

years of Level V incarceration under § 4205).12 If, however, the underlying sexual

10
   11 Del. C. 4205A (effective June 30, 2010 to May 27, 2015).
11
   11 Del. C. § 4214 (effective September 1, 2011 to May 31, 2012).
12
   11 Del. C. § 777A(e)(2).

                                               6
offense is a class G felony and the child victim is younger than twelve, then the crime

of sex offender conduct is increased to a class B felony (which has a sentencing

range of two to twenty-five years of Level V incarceration under § 4205).13

Similarly, § 4205A at the time of Justice’s crimes increased the sentence for certain

sexual offenses, including sex offender conduct against a child under § 777A, to

twenty-five years to life imprisonment if the child victim was under the age of

fourteen.14 There is no ambiguity that Justice’s victim, who was thirteen, was a child

under §§ 777A and 4205A.

       (10) To the extent Justice claims that the jury did not determine whether the

victim was under the age of fourteen in finding him guilty of second-degree rape, he

is mistaken. The jury instructions for the second-degree rape counts required the

jury to decide, among other things, whether the State had proven beyond a

reasonable doubt that the victim was under the age of fourteen.

       (11) Neither the age of the child victim nor Justice’s status as a registered

sex offender and habitual offender caused him to be sentenced in violation of

double-jeopardy principles. “The Constitutional double jeopardy clause prohibits

multiple punishments for the same offense.”15 Justice does not dispute that the

13
   Id. Although second-degree rape is a class B felony, the minimum sentence for second-degree
rape is ten years of Level V incarceration instead of two years of Level V incarceration. 11 Del.
C. § 772(c).
14
   11 Del. C. § 4205A(a)(2).
15
   Seward v. State, 723 A.2d 365, 375 (Del. 1999).

                                               7
victim was under fourteen, that he was a registered sex offender at the time he

committed USC Second-Degree Rape, and that he was a habitual offender. Under §

4205A(a)(2), the sentencing range for Justice’s USC Second-Degree Rape

conviction was twenty-five years to life imprisonment because the victim was under

the age of fourteen. Under § 4214(a), the Superior Court was required to sentence

Justice to life imprisonment because that was the maximum sentence for his USC

Second-Degree Rape conviction under § 4205A, which was a violent felony under

§ 4205(c).

       (12) It is not a violation of double jeopardy if, as Justice contends, the

conviction that required him to register as a sex offender was one of the predicate

offenses underlying his habitual offender status. Nor is there any violation of double

jeopardy based on the fact that Justice’s status as a registered sex offender was an

element of USC Second-Degree Rape. Under § 777A, “[i]t is a separate crime for a

registered sex offender to knowingly commit a sexual offense against a child.”16

       (13) Justice was punished once, not multiple times, for USC Second-Degree

Rape. The enhancement of his USC Second-Degree Rape sentence under §§ 4205A

and 4214 did not violate double jeopardy.17 Justice has not shown that his sentence

16
  Monceaux, 51 A.3d at 476.
17
  See, e.g., Adams v. State, 2020 WL 1651685, at *3 (Del. Apr. 2, 2020) (rejecting the defendant’s
claim that using a prior conviction to enhance the sentence for a later conviction violated double
jeopardy principles); Epperson v. State, 2002 WL 480932, at *1 (Del. Mar. 22, 2022) (“The United
States Supreme Court has consistently rejected double jeopardy challenges…to sentencing

                                                8
for USC Second-Degree Rape is illegal. We therefore affirm the Superior Court’s

denial of Justice’s motion for correction of illegal sentence, albeit on grounds

different than those relied upon by the Superior Court.18

       NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior

Court be AFFIRMED.

                                                    BY THE COURT:

                                                    /s/ Gary F. Traynor
                                                    Justice

schemes that enhance a defendant’s sentence because of a prior conviction.”) (citing Witte v.
United State, 515 U.S. 389, 398 (1995)).
18
   Unitrin, Inc. v. Am. Gen. Corp., 651 A.2d 1361, 1390 (Del. 1995) (noting that the Delaware
Supreme Court may affirm a trial court’s judgment for reasons different than those articulated by
the trial court).

                                               9