Court Opinion

ID: 9386461
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-12 16:02:47.831526+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:06.621771
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

 CHARLES DUFFY,                            §
                                           §
          Defendant Below,                 §   No. 20, 2023
          Appellant,                       §
                                           §   Court Below—Superior Court
          v.                               §   of the State of Delaware
                                           §
 STATE OF DELAWARE,                        §   Cr. ID No. 84006719DI (S)
                                           §
          Appellee.                        §

                             Submitted: February 22, 2023
                             Decided:   April 11, 2023

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

                                    ORDER

      After consideration of the opening brief, the motion to affirm, and the record

on appeal, it appears to the Court that:

      (1)        The appellant, Charles Duffy, 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 Duffy’s opening brief that his appeal is without merit. We agree and

affirm.
       (2)     In 1985, Duffy entered a Robinson plea to first-degree rape.1 The

Superior Court sentenced Dufy to life imprisonment.                     Duffy unsuccessfully

challenged this conviction and sentence.2 In 2012, the Board of Parole certified

Duffy for parole upon his successful completion of the Greentree program.

       (3)     While Duffy was on parole, he was arrested and charged with new

crimes. On January 12, 2018, Duffy pleaded guilty to violation of privacy. As a

result of this conviction, Duffy’s parole for his first-degree rape conviction was

revoked.

       (4)     On October 26, 2020, Duffy filed a motion for correction of illegal

sentence. He argued that his life sentence for first-degree rape was illegal because

it was a capital sentence for a non-capital crime. The Superior Court denied the

motion, noting that this Court had previously held that Duffy received a life sentence

for first-degree rape.

       (5)     On March 19, 2021, Duffy filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in this

Court. He contended that he received a capital sentence for a non-capital offense.

1
  Robinson v. State, 291 A.2d 279, 281 (Del. 1972) (permitting the acceptance of a guilty plea in
the absence of an admission of guilt).
2
  See, e.g., Duffy v. State, 2012 WL 4019037, at *2 (Del. Sept. 12, 2012) (affirming the Superior
Court’s denial of Duffy’s motion for postconviction relief in which Duffy alleged that his plea was
involuntary and his counsel was ineffective because he was led to believe that his sentence would
be forty-five years at Level V, not the remainder of his life); Duffy v. State, 1986 WL 17363, at
*2-3 (Del. July 31, 1986) (affirming the Superior Court’s denial of Duffy’s postconviction
motions).

                                                2
This Court dismissed the petition, ruling that Duffy did not receive a capital sentence

for his first-degree rape conviction.3

       (6)    On November 2, 2022, Duffy filed another motion for correction of

illegal sentence in the Superior Court. He argued that he was indicted, convicted,

and sentenced under the death penalty statute, 11 Del. C. § 4209, for a non-capital

crime. The Superior Court denied the motion, finding it repetitive and that Duffy

was indicted, convicted, and sentenced for first-degree rape, not first-degree murder.

This appeal followed.

       (7)    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

       (8)    In his opening brief, Duffy continues to insist that he was indicted,

convicted, and sentenced under the death penalty statute. He is mistaken. A grand

jury indicted Duffy for first-degree rape under the relevant statute, 11 Del. C. § 764,

3
  In re Duffy, 2021 WL 1733296 (Del. Apr. 30, 2021).
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
in effect at the time of his crime.7 Duffy entered a Robinson plea to first-degree rape

under Section 764. As this Court previously recognized, “[t]he Superior Court

sentenced Duffy to life imprisonment, not the death penalty, as required by the

relevant statutes [11 Del. C. §§ 764, 4205(b)(1) and 4209(A)] at the time he

committed first-degree rape.”8 Duffy’s life sentence for first-degree rape is not

illegal. We warn Duffy that if he continues to file appeals or writs making repetitive

claims in Criminal ID No. 84006719DI, he could be enjoined from filing appeals or

writs without leave of the Court.

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

GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.

                                            BY THE COURT:

                                            /s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr.
                                                 Chief Justice

7
  In June 1984, Section 764(2) provided that a man was guilty of first degree rape when he
intentionally engaged in sexual intercourse with a female without her consent and the victim was
not the defendant’s voluntary social companion.
8
  Duffy, 2021 WL 1733296, at *1.

                                               4