Brooks v. State ( 2017 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
GALEN D. BROOKS, §
§ No. 520, 2016
Defendant Below, §
Appellant, § Court Below—Superior Court of the
§ State of Delaware
v. §
§ Cr. ID No. 1206011471
STATE OF DELAWARE, §
§
Plaintiff Below, §
Appellee. §
Submitted: November 22, 2016
Decided: February 14, 2017
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND and SEITZ, Justices.
ORDER
This 14th day of February 2017 upon consideration of the appellant’s
opening brief, the appellee’s motion to affirm, and the Superior Court record, it
appears to the Court that:
(1) In 2013, a Superior Court jury found the appellant, Galen D. Brooks,
guilty of multiple counts of Tier 5, Tier 4, and Tier 2 Drug Dealing, Drug Dealing
without a Tier Designation (hereinafter “drug dealing convictions”) and Tier 4 and
Tier 2 Aggravated Possession and Possession of Cocaine (hereinafter “drug
possession convictions”). When sentencing Brooks in March 2015, the Superior
Court merged nine of the drug possession convictions with nine of the drug dealing
convictions and imposed sentence only for the drug dealing convictions, not the
drug possession convictions.
(2) In September 2016, Brooks filed a motion for correction of illegal
sentence under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a). Brooks claimed that his
prosecution and conviction for the multiple counts and different levels of drug
dealing and drug possession violated principles of double jeopardy. On September
27, 2016, the Superior Court denied the motion for correction of sentence as
untimely and repetitive and because a reduction of modification of sentence was
not warranted. This appeal followed.
(3) Having carefully considered the parties’ positions on appeal, we
affirm the denial of the motion for correction of sentence, albeit on grounds
different from those relied upon by the Superior Court.1 Brooks’ motion for
correction of sentence was fundamentally directed to the validity of his
convictions, not the legality of his sentence. A proceeding under Rule 35(a)
presupposes a valid conviction.2 The narrow function of Rule 35(a) is to correct an
illegal sentence, “not to re-examine errors occurring at the trial or other
proceedings prior to the imposition of sentence.”3 Brooks’ motion for correction
1
Unitrin, Inc. v. American Gen. Corp., 651 A.2d 1361, 1390 (Del. 1995) (noting that this Court
may affirm a trial court’s judgment for reasons different than those articulated by the trial court).
2
Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998).
3
Id. (quoting Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 430 (1962)).
2
of sentence was not an appropriate means to argue the alleged double jeopardy
violations in his underlying convictions.4
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is
GRANTED. The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.
Chief Justice
4
See Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61 (governing procedure for a collateral attack on a criminal
conviction).
3