Stanley v. State ( 2024 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
GARY V. STANLEY, §
§
Defendant Below, § No. 456, 2023
Appellant, §
§ Court Below—Superior Court
v. § of the State of Delaware
§
STATE OF DELAWARE, § Cr. ID No. 1812010757 (K)
§
Appellee. §
§
Submitted: December 18, 2023
Decided: January 30, 2024
Before TRAYNOR, LEGROW, and GRIFFITHS, Justices.
ORDER
After consideration of the opening brief, the motion to affirm, and the record
on appeal, it appears to the Court that:
(1) The appellant, Gary V. Stanley, filed this appeal from a Superior Court
order denying his motion for correction of illegal sentence. The State of Delaware
has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment on the basis that it is manifest
on the face of Stanley’s opening brief that the appeal is without merit. We agree and
affirm.
(2) In March 2019, a grand jury indicted Stanley for multiple drug and
weapon offenses. On September 10, 2019, Stanley pleaded guilty to drug dealing,
carrying a concealed deadly weapon (“CCDW”), and possession of firearm
ammunition by a person prohibited (“PABPP”). As part of the plea agreement, the
parties agreed to recommend a sentence with six years of unsuspended Level V time
followed by probation with GPS monitoring. The Superior Court conducted a plea
colloquy with Stanley and accepted his guilty plea.
(3) On November 27, 2019, the Superior Court sentenced Stanley as
follows: (i) for CCDW, eight years of Level V incarceration, suspended after five
years for eighteen months of Level III GPS; (ii) for drug dealing, fifteen years of
Level V incarceration, suspended after one year for one year of Level IV Work
Release or Home Confinement, followed by eighteen months of Level III GPS; and
(iii) for PABPP, eight years of Level V incarceration, suspended for eighteen months
of Level III GPS. Stanley did not appeal the Superior Court’s judgment, but did file
an unsuccessful motion for postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule
61.1
(4) On April 10, 2023, Stanley filed a motion for review of sentence that
sought reduction of the Level V portion of his sentence and modification of the Level
IV portion of his sentence. The Superior Court denied the motion, finding the
motion was time-barred and the sentence was imposed under a plea agreement with
a jointly recommended sentence. On November 8, 2023, Stanley filed a motion for
1
Stanley v. State, 2022 WL 518460 (Del. Feb. 21, 2022) (affirming the Superior Court’s denial of
Stanley’s Rule 61 motion).
2
correction of illegal sentence under Rule 35(a). The Superior Court denied the
motion, finding the sentence was imposed pursuant to a plea agreement and was
appropriate for all of the reasons stated at sentencing. This appeal followed.
(5) This Court reviews the denial of a motion for correction of illegal
sentence for abuse of discretion.2 We review questions of law de novo.3 Rule 35(a)
permits the Superior Court to correct an illegal sentence “at any time.”4 A sentence
is illegal if it exceeds statutory 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 its substance, or is
a sentence that the judgment of conviction did not authorize.5
(6) As he did below, Stanley argues in his opening brief that his CCDW
sentence is illegal because the sentencing order and Department of Correction
records are internally contradictory. He is mistaken. In the sentencing order, the
CCDW sentence is eight years of Level V incarceration, suspended after five years
for eighteen months of Level III GPS. In the Department of Correction records
Stanley provides, the CCDW sentence is described as eight years of Level V
incarceration, suspended after five years at Level V to be followed by “GPS
2
Fountain v. State, 100 A.3d 1021, 2014 WL 4102069, at *1 (Del. Aug. 19, 2014) (TABLE).
3
Id.4
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(a).
5
Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998).
3
[eighteen] months at Level [III].”6 There is no internal contradiction. Stanley’s
argument otherwise relies on a condition in the sentencing order that requires GPS
monitoring during Home Confinement, but that reliance is misplaced. That
condition is part of Stanley’s drug dealing sentence and only applies if he is placed
on Level IV Home Confinement for that sentence instead of Level IV Work Release.
(7) Stanley also requests removal of the GPS monitoring condition. The
Superior Court may reduce the “term or conditions of partial confinement or
probation, at any time,” but will not consider repetitive requests for sentence
reduction.7 Stanley has not shown that the Superior Court abused its discretion in
denying his motion based on the parties’ plea agreement and the court’s conclusion
that the sentence remained appropriate.
(8) Finally, although Stanley has not raised this issue, his eighteen-month
probation sentence for PABPP exceeds the one-year statutory limit for felonies that
are neither violent nor drug-related.8 The PABPP probation sentence therefore must
be corrected.
6
App. to Opening Br., Ex. 4 (Offender Status Sheet).
7
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b).
8
11 Del. C. § 4333(b)(3) (providing that the period of probation for a crime that is not designated
a violent felony under § 4201(c) or set forth in Title 16 shall not be more than one year).
4
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is
GRANTED, the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED, and Stanley’s
sentence is REMANDED for correction of the probation sentence imposed for his
PABPP conviction. Jurisdiction is not retained.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Abigail M. LeGrow
Justice
5