Court Opinion

ID: 9958524
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-09 16:03:34.491056+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:27.881320
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

  WARREN D. WILSON,                     §
                                        § No. 472, 2023
        Defendant Below,                §
        Appellant,                      § Court Below–Superior Court
                                        § of the State of Delaware
        v.                              §
                                        § Cr. ID No. 2104016453 (K)
  STATE OF DELAWARE,                    §
                                        §
        Appellee.                       §

                          Submitted: February 23, 2024
                          Decided:   April 8, 2024

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

                                      ORDER

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

affirm, and the record below, it appears to the Court that:

      (1)    The appellant, Warren D. Wilson, filed this appeal from the Superior

Court’s November 27, 2023 order denying his motion for correction of an illegal

sentence. The State has moved to affirm the conviction below but laudably concedes

that the Level V portion of Wilson’s sentence for resisting arrest exceeds the

statutory maximum penalty. We agree and, accordingly, decline Wilson’s invitation

to vacate his conviction for resisting arrest but remand the matter to the Superior

Court to issue a modified sentencing order.
         (2)     On March 30, 2022, Wilson pleaded guilty to one count of felony

resisting arrest, a class G felony, and one count of driving under the influence of

drugs. The Superior Court immediately sentenced Wilson as follows: for resisting

arrest, to three years of incarceration, suspended for one year of Level II probation;

and for driving under the influence, to one year of incarceration, suspended for one

year of Level II probation. Wilson did not appeal his convictions or sentence.

         (3)     On May 27, 2022, the Superior Court found that Wilson had violated

the terms of his probation and sentenced him as follows: for resisting arrest, to three

years of incarceration, suspended after one year and the successful completion of a

Level V treatment program followed by decreasing levels of supervision; and for

driving under the influence, to one year of incarceration, suspended after one year

of Level III probation.1 Wilson did not appeal.

         (4)     Between August 2022 and September 2023, Wilson filed four motions

for sentence modification or review, all of which were denied. In September 2023,

Wilson filed a motion for correction of illegal sentence under Superior Court

Criminal Rule 35(a), arguing that the Level V portion of his sentence for resisting

arrest exceeds the statutory maximum term of two years. The Superior Court denied

the motion as an impermissible repetitive motion for sentence modification. Wilson

did not appeal.

1
    The Superior Court also discharged Wilson from probation as unimproved in an unrelated case.
                                                2
       (5)     On November 27, 2023, Wilson filed another motion for correction of

illegal sentence, again arguing that the Level V portion of his sentence for resisting

arrest exceeds the statutory maximum term of two years. The Superior Court denied

the motion, finding that (i) it was an impermissible repetitive request for sentence

modification, (ii) Wilson was not amenable to probation at this time, and (iii) the

sentence remains appropriate for the reasons stated at sentencing. This appeal

followed.

       (6)     In his opening brief on appeal, Wilson argues, as he did below, that his

sentence for resisting arrest exceeds the statutory maximum penalty of two years for

a class G felony,2 and that his conviction must therefore be vacated.

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

abuse of discretion.3 To the extent a claim involves a question of law, we review the

claim de novo.4 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.5

2
  See 11 Del. C. § 1257(a) (“Resisting arrest with force or violence is a class G felony.”); id. §
4205(b)(7) (limiting the term of incarceration for a class G felony to two years).
3
  Fountain v. State, 2014 WL 4102069, at *1 (Del. Aug. 19, 2014).
4
  Id.
5
  Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998).
                                                3
          (8)   As the State concedes, Wilson’s sentence for resisting arrest exceeds

statutory limits and must be corrected. However, Wilson’s argument that his

conviction must be vacated is without merit. A Rule 35(a) motion presupposes the

existence of a valid conviction and is not a means to mount a collateral attack on the

underlying conviction.6 Accordingly, the appropriate remedy is to remand this

matter to the Superior Court for the issuance of a new sentencing order that reduces

the Level V portion of Wilson’s sentence for resisting arrest sentence to two years.

          NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the matter is hereby

REMANDED to the Superior Court with directions to enter a modified sentencing

order in accordance with this Order. Jurisdiction is not retained.

                                               BY THE COURT:

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

6
    Id.
                                           4