No. 538, 2010.
Submitted: March 25, 2011.
Decided: June 17, 2011.
Court Below — Superior Court the State of Delaware in and for Kent County, Cr. ID No. 9408013493.
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and JACOBS, Justices.
This 17th day of June 2011, it appears to the Court that:
(1) On December 14, 1994, the appellant, Edward D. Sturgis, pled guilty to Assault in the Third Degree and Reckless Endangering in the Second Degree and was sentenced to two years at Level V suspended for probation ("the assault case"). On March 17, 1997, Sturgis pled guilty to Attempted Murder in the First Degree and was sentenced to twenty years at Level V suspended after fifteen years minimum mandatory ("the attempted murder case").
State v. Sturgis, Del. Super., Cr. ID No. 9610021793, Terry, J. (Mar. 17, 1997) (sentencing order).
(2) On January 29, 2008, the Superior Court modified the sentence in the attempted murder case. On the State's appeal, however, the sentence modification was vacated.
State v. Sturgis, 947 A.2d 1087 (Del. 2008).
(3) On November 5, 2009, Sturgis filed a motion for modification of sentence in the assault case. Apparently, Sturgis asked the Superior Court to modify the sentence in the attempted murder case based on a July 31, 2008 order that had issued in the assault case. By order dated April 21, 2010, the Superior Court denied the motion for modification of sentence.
The Court notes that the motion is listed on the Superior Court docket but does not appear to be included in the record lodged in this appeal.
The July 31, 2008 order purported to discharge the 1994 sentence that Sturgis completed in 1996.
(4) On July 16, 2010, Sturgis filed a motion for correction of sentence in the assault case. Sturgis asked the Superior Court to correct the sentence in the attempted murder case on the basis of the July 31, 2008 order in the assault case. By order dated August 5, 2010, the Superior Court denied Sturgis' motion for correction of sentence. This appeal followed.
(5) After consideration of the parties' briefs on appeal and the Superior Court record, we have concluded that the denial of Sturgis' motion for correction of sentence should be affirmed. Sturgis has not demonstrated, and the record does not reflect, that he is serving a sentence that is illegal or otherwise incorrect.
See Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(a) (governing motions for correction of sentence). Relief under Rule 35(a) is available when the sentence imposed exceeds the statutorily authorized limits, violates double jeopardy, 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 substance, or is a sentence that the judgment of conviction did not authorize. Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998).
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.