IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
DAVID M. WILLIAMS, §
§
Defendant Below, § No. 479, 2019
Appellant, §
§ Court Below—Superior Court
v. § of the State of Delaware
§
STATE OF DELAWARE, § Cr. ID Nos. 9803018202A (N)
§ 9803018202B (N)
Plaintiff Below, §
Appellee. §
§
Submitted: August 9, 2021
Decided: September 20, 2021
Before VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and TRAYNOR, Justices.
ORDER
After 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) The appellant, David M. Williams, appeals from a Superior Court order
dated October 23, 2019, which denied Williams’s successive motion challenging his
sentence under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35. The State has filed a motion to
affirm the Superior Court’s judgment on the ground that it is manifest on the face of
Williams’s opening brief that the appeal is without merit. We agree and affirm.
(2) The Superior Court sentenced Williams under the habitual offender
statute in 1999, and this Court affirmed in 2000.1 Over the years, Williams has filed
numerous motions for correction or modification of sentence and for postconviction
relief. In the order that is the subject of this appeal, the Superior Court denied a
motion that the court construed as a motion seeking a modification of Williams’s
sentence under 11 Del. C. § 4217(b).2 The court denied the motion as time barred,
duplicative, and as procedurally defective because the Department of Correction did
not file the application required under the rule.3
(3) On appeal, Williams contends that the Superior Court erroneously
denied the motion under Rule 35(b), when Williams was actually seeking correction
of an illegal sentence under Rule 35(a). In support of his argument, Williams has
enclosed a copy of a “Motion for Correction of Sentence Rule 35(a),” which is dated
August 29, 2019. The Court has been unable to locate a copy of the August 29, 2019
motion in the Superior Court record, which is voluminous as a result of the many
successive motions that Williams has filed. Thus, it is unclear whether Williams
ever submitted that motion to the Superior Court or, if so, what action the Superior
Court took on it.
1
See Williams v. State, 2004 WL 1874693 (Del. Aug. 13, 2004) (affirming denial of motion for
modification of sentence, and providing history).
2
See 11 Del. C. § 4217(b) (authorizing a trial court to modify a sentence “solely on the basis of
an application filed by the Department of Correction for good cause shown which certifies that the
release of the defendant shall not constitute a substantial risk to the community or the defendant’s
own self”).
3
See id. § 4217(d) (establishing procedure for consideration of an application for modification).
2
(4) Nevertheless, to the extent that Williams submitted the motion and the
Superior Court did not address Williams’s contention that his sentence is illegal,
Williams has not demonstrated any grounds for reversal. Although difficult to
discern, Williams appears to argue that his sentence is illegal because a conviction
for escape after conviction cannot be a predicate offense for sentencing as a habitual
offender following the purported “repeal” of the offense of escape after conviction.
Even if escape after conviction had been repealed, which it has not,4 Williams does
not argue that escape after conviction was not a felony when he was convicted and
sentenced as a habitual offender.5 Williams therefore has not established that his
sentence was illegal.
(5) Finally, we note that, given Williams’s extensive history of filing
legally or factually frivolous litigation, this Court has previously directed the Clerk
of this Court to refuse any filings from Williams related to the criminal convictions
and sentences in Cr. ID Nos. 9803018202A and 9803018202B unless the filing is
accompanied by the required filing fee or is accompanied by a complete motion to
proceed in form pauperis with a sworn affidavit containing the certifications
4
See 11 Del. C. § 1253 (providing that escape after conviction is a class B, C, or D felony,
depending on the circumstances).
5
See Miles v. State, 2018 WL 4292206 (Del. Sept. 7, 2018) (rejecting appellant’s claim that his
habitual offender sentence was illegal because the predicate offenses had been statutorily
reclassified after his conviction and sentencing as a habitual offender).
3
required by 10 Del. C. § 8803(e) and that motion is first granted by the Court.6 That
direction remains in effect.
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/ James T. Vaughn, Jr.
Justice
6
Matter of Williams, 2016 WL 3453718 (Del. May 23, 2016).
4