IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
TERVAUGHN C. STURGIS, §
§
Defendant Below, § No. 600, 2018
Appellant, §
§ Court Below—Superior Court
v. § of the State of Delaware
§
STATE OF DELAWARE, § Cr. ID No. 0304014538 (N)
§
Plaintiff Below, §
Appellee. §
Submitted: December 21, 2018
Decided: January 30, 2019
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA, and TRAYNOR, Justices.
ORDER
After careful consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the appellee’s
motion to affirm, and the record on appeal, we conclude that the Superior Court’s
order, dated November 19, 2018, adopting the Commissioner’s report and
recommendations, dated August 20, 2018,1 and denying the appellant’s motion for
postconviction relief should be affirmed.2 The appellant has expressly waived all of
the claims he raised in the Superior Court, except for his claim that defects in his
indictment meant he was illegally sentenced under Superior Court Criminal Rule
35(a). As the Superior Court correctly recognized, the appellant’s challenges to his
1
State v. Sturgis, 2018 WL 4002245 (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 20, 2018).
2
State v. Sturgis, 2018 WL 6046759 (Del. Super. Ct. Nov. 19, 2018).
indictment are outside the limited scope of Rule 35(a).3 The Superior Court did not
err in denying the appellant’s motion.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that motion to affirm is GRANTED
and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Karen L. Valihura
Justice
3
Sturgis, 2018 WL 6046759, at *4 (“Under Rule 35(a), the ‘narrow function’ is to correct illegal
sentences, ‘not to re-examine errors at the trial or other proceedings prior to the imposition of
sentence.’”) (quoting Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 430 (1962)). See also Brittingham v.
State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998).
2