IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
DEVIN L. COLEMAN, §
§
Defendant Below- § No. 63, 2018
Appellant, §
§
v. § Court Below—Superior Court
§ of the State of Delaware
STATE OF DELAWARE, §
§ Cr. ID Nos. 1303012706
Plaintiff Below- § and 1303004663 (K)
Appellee. §
Submitted: March 8, 2018
Decided: May 15, 2018
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the State’s motion to
affirm, and the record below, it appears to the Court that:
(1) The defendant-appellant, Devin Coleman, filed this appeal from the
Superior Court’s denial of his motion for correction of sentence under Superior
Court Criminal Rule 35(a). The State has moved to affirm the judgment below on
the ground that it is manifest on the face of Coleman’s opening brief that his appeal
is without merit. We agree and affirm.
(2) The record reflects that Coleman pled guilty in June 2014 to five
charges under two separate indictments. As part of his plea agreement, Coleman
acknowledged that he was eligible for sentencing as a habitual offender under 11
Del. C. § 4214(a) and agreed to immediate sentencing. The Superior Court
sentenced him, effective March 15, 2013, as follow: (i) on one count of Possession
of a Firearm by a Person Prohibited (“PFPP”), eight years at Level V incarceration;
(ii) on each of two counts of Failing to Obey a Police Signal, two years at Level V
incarceration suspended for one year of probation; (iii) on one count of Conspiracy
in the Second Degree, two years at Level V incarceration suspended for one year of
probation; and (iv) on one count of Reckless Endangering in the Second Degree, one
year at Level V incarceration suspended for one year of probation. In exchange for
his plea, the State dismissed thirty other charges against Coleman.
(3) Coleman did not file a direct appeal. Instead, he has filed multiple
unsuccessful motions seeking postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal
Rule 61 and modification or correction of his sentence under Rule 35. Coleman filed
his latest motion for correction of illegal sentence in March 2017, which he
supplemented in June 2017. The Superior Court denied relief. This appeal followed.
(4) Coleman raises one argument in his opening brief on appeal. He
contends that his eight year, minimum mandatory sentence for PFPP is illegal
because the PFPP statute, 11 Del. C. § 1448(e)(3), expressly provides that a sentence
imposed under that statute is not subject to the enhanced sentencing provisions of 11
Del. C. § 4215.
-2-
(5) There is no merit to Coleman’s contention. A sentence is illegal when
it exceeds the statutorily authorized 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 the substance of the sentence, or is a sentence which the judgment of conviction
did not authorize.1 In his guilty plea agreement, Coleman admitted that he had the
requisite number of prior felony convictions to be sentenced as a habitual offender
under 11 Del. C. § 4214(a). Under that statute, the Superior Court had discretion to
impose a sentence “up to life imprisonment.”2 The Superior Court sentenced
Coleman on his PFPP conviction to an eight year, minimum mandatory term of
incarceration under Section 4214(a), not Section 4215. Coleman’s argument on
appeal lacks any factual basis. His sentence is not illegal.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to affirm is
GRANTED. The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Karen L. Valihura
Justice
1
Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998).
2
11 Del. C. § 4214(a) (2015).
-3-