Court Opinion

ID: 9401893
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-14 16:03:45.530205+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:55.964829
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

 JAMES HARDWICK,                       §
                                       §   No. 45, 2023
        Defendant Below,               §
        Appellant,                     §   Court Below–Superior Court
                                       §   of the State of Delaware
        v.                             §
                                       §   Cr. ID No. 0709006233 (N)
 STATE OF DELAWARE,                    §
                                       §
        Appellee.                      §

                          Submitted: May 10, 2023
                          Decided:   June 13, 2023

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices.

                                     ORDER

      After consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, his supplemental opening

brief, the State’s motion to affirm, and the Superior Court record, it appears to the

Court that:

      (1)     James Hardwick appeals the Superior Court’s January 24, 2023 order

denying his motion for correction of illegal sentence. The State has filed a motion

to affirm the judgment below on the ground that it is manifest on the face of

Hardwick’s opening brief that his appeal is without merit. We agree and affirm.

      (2)     In 2008, a Superior Court jury convicted Hardwick of twenty-nine

counts of first-degree rape and two counts of attempted second-degree rape.

Following a presentence investigation, the Superior Court sentenced Hardwick to
thirty-one consecutive life sentences.1 We affirmed Hardwick’s convictions and

sentence on appeal.2

          (3)    In June 2009, Hardwick filed a timely motion for postconviction relief,

and the Superior Court appointed counsel to represent him in connection with the

proceedings. After expanding the record with briefing and trial counsel’s affidavit

responding to Hardwick’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, the Superior

Court denied the motion.3 We affirmed its denial on appeal.4

          (4)    In November 2022, Hardwick filed a 58-page “petition” under Superior

Court Rule 35(a), which enables the Superior Court to correct an illegal sentence at

any time.5 Hardwick asked the Superior Court to grant him a new trial, alleging

ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, and

errors made by the trial court. Noting that Hardwick had not challenged the legality

of his sentence, the Superior Court denied the petition. This appeal followed.

          (5)    We review the denial of a motion for correction of illegal sentence for

abuse of discretion.6 To the extent a claim involves a question of law, we review the

1
    Hardwick’s sentences were enhanced because he had a prior rape conviction.
2
    Hardwick v. State, 971 A.2d 130 (Del. 2009).
3
    State v. Hardwick, 2011 WL 855854 (Del. Super. Ct. Mar. 10, 2011).
4
    Hardwick v. State, 2012 WL 1067150 (Del. Mar. 27, 2012).
5
    Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(a).
6
    Fountain v. State, 2014 WL 4102069, at *1 (Del. Aug. 19, 2014).

                                                   2
claim de novo.7 A sentence is illegal if it exceeds statutory limits, violates the

Double Jeopardy Clause, 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.8

           (6)   On appeal, Hardwick again alleges ineffective assistance of trial and

appellate counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, and errors made by the trial court and

also claims that his sentence is illegal because his trial was tainted by these defects.

Hardwick’s arguments are unavailing. The limited purpose of a motion under Rule

35(a) is to permit the correction of an illegal sentence.9 It is not a means for a

defendant to attack the legality of his conviction or to raise allegations of error

occurring in the proceedings leading to the judgment of conviction.10 Accordingly,

we find no error in the Superior Court's denial of Hardwick’s Rule 35(a) petition

because the arguments raised therein, primarily ineffective assistance of counsel

claims, are not properly raised in a Rule 35(a) motion. Having conducted an

7
    Id.
8
    Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998).
9
    Id.
10
     Id.

                                                 3
independent review of Hardwick’s sentence, moreover, we are satisfied that it is not

illegal.

       NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to affirm

be GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court be AFFIRMED.

                                      BY THE COURT:

                                      /s/ Karen L. Valihura
                                      Justice

                                         4