IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
RUSSELL M. GRIMES, §
§ No. 114, 2021
Defendant Below, §
Appellant, §
§
v. § Court Below–Superior Court
§ of the State of Delaware
STATE OF DELAWARE, §
§ Cr. ID No. 1108023033A (K)
Plaintiff Below, §
Appellee. §
Submitted: June 8, 2021
Decided: August 5, 2021
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and MONTGOMERY-REEVES,
Justices.
ORDER
After careful consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the State’s motion
to affirm, and the record on appeal, it appears to the Court that:
(1) Russell Grimes appeals the Superior Court’s March 22, 2021 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 Grimes’
opening brief that his appeal is without merit. We agree and affirm.
(2) In 2013, a Superior Court jury found Grimes guilty of first-degree
robbery and related offenses. Grimes appealed, and we vacated his convictions and
remanded for a new trial because an error occurred during jury selection.1
Following a retrial in 2016, a different Superior Court jury convicted Grimes of first-
degree robbery, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony
(“PFDCF”), possession of a firearm by a person prohibited, second-degree
conspiracy, and five counts of second-degree reckless endangering. The Superior
Court sentenced Grimes to an aggregate of fifty-three years of Level V incarceration,
followed by probation. We affirmed Grimes’ convictions and sentence on direct
appeal.2
(3) On March 18, 2021, Grimes filed a motion for correction of illegal
sentence under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a). The Superior Court denied the
motion, and this appeal followed.
(4) On appeal, Grimes argues, as he did below, that his sentences for first-
degree robbery and PFDCF run afoul of the double jeopardy protections of the
Delaware and United States Constitutions. Grimes’ argument is unavailing.
(5) In the sentencing context, “the Double Jeopardy Clause does no more
than prevent the sentencing court from prescribing greater punishment than the
legislature intended.”3 Section 1447A of Title 11 of the Delaware Code defines
1
Grimes v. State, 2015 WL 2231801 (Del. May 12, 2015).
2
Grimes v. State, 188 A.3d 824 (Del. 2018).
3
Johnson v. State, 5 A.3d 617, 620 (Del. 2010) (quoting Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359, 366
(1983)).
2
PFDCF and provides, “In any instance where a person is convicted of a felony
together with a conviction for possession of a firearm during the commission of such
felony, such person shall serve the sentence for the felony itself before beginning the
sentence imposed for possession of a firearm during such felony.”4 We have held
that the statutory mandate of consecutive sentences is clear evidence of legislative
intent to impose cumulative punishments under two statutes, regardless of whether
the statutes proscribe the “same” conduct.5 Contrary to Grimes’ assertion, because
the legislature’s intent is unambiguous, 11 Del. C. § 206 is not implicated.6
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY 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
4
11 Del. C. § 1447A(e).
5
LeCompte v. State, 516 A.2d 898, 900-02 (Del. 1986) (holding that a defendant’s consecutive
sentences for first-degree robbery and possession of a deadly weapon during the commission of a
felony were not only permissible but mandatory); Powell v. State, 2009 WL 3367068, at *4 (Del.
Oct. 20, 2009) (“Under Delaware law, a defendant may be separately charged, convicted and
sentenced for both Robbery in the First Degree and Possession of a Firearm During the
Commission of a Felony.”).
6
Johnson, 5 A.3d at 620-21.
3