Chandler v. State

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
LAMOTTE S. CHANDLER, §
§ No. 606, 2014
Defendant Below- §
Appellant, §
§
v. § Court Below—Superior Court
§ of the State of Delaware,
STATE OF DELAWARE, § in and for New Castle County
§ Cr. ID 1103017141
Plaintiff Below- §
Appellee. §
Submitted: January 14, 2015
Decided: February 19, 2015
Before HOLLAND, VALIHURA, and VAUGHN, Justices.
ORDER
This 19th day of February 2015, upon consideration of the appellant’s
opening brief, the State’s motion to affirm, and the record below, it appears
to the Court that:
(1) The appellant, LaMotte Chandler, filed this appeal from the
Superior Court’s denial of his motion for correction of sentence. The State
has filed a motion to affirm the judgment below on the ground that it is
manifest on the face of Chandler’s opening brief that his appeal is without
merit. We agree and affirm.
(2) In October 2011, Chandler pled guilty to one count of Robbery
in the First Degree, two counts of Robbery in the Second Degree, and one
count each of Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony
(PFDCF), and Aggravated Menacing. The Superior Court sentenced
Chandler to a total period of thirty years at Level V incarceration, to be
suspended after serving nine years in prison followed by decreasing levels of
supervision. Chandler did not appeal. In August 2014, Chandler filed a
motion for correction of illegal sentence under Superior Court Criminal Rule
35(a), alleging that his separate sentences for Robbery in the First Degree,
PFDCF, and Aggravated Menacing violate double jeopardy principles and
should be merged because PFDCF and Aggravated Menacing were lesser
included offenses of Robbery in the First Degree. The Superior Court
denied his motion. This appeal followed.
(3) On appeal, Chandler again alleges that his separate sentences
are illegal because they violate double jeopardy principles. Chandler is
incorrect. As the Superior Court properly held, the language of the PFDCF
statute is clear evidence that the General Assembly intended to punish
PFDCF and any underlying felony as separate offenses.1 Accordingly, there
is no double jeopardy violation arising from Chandler’s separate sentences
for PFDCF and the underlying felony. Moreover, Chandler’s separate
sentences for robbery and aggravated menacing do not violate double
1
DeShields v. State, 2015 WL 115487 (Del. Jan. 7, 2015).
2
jeopardy principles because the charges involved two different victims. 2 His
conviction for aggravated menacing thus was not a lesser included offense to
his conviction for first degree robbery.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the
Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Karen L. Valihura
Justice
2
See Wright v. State, 2010 WL 2163851 (Del. May 10, 2010) (holding that the charging
of multiple crimes for multiple victims did not violate double jeopardy principles in that
case).
3