Dale v. State

• Court: Supreme Court of Delaware
• Decided: September 29, 2025
• Docket: 238, 2025
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

ALANDO DALE, § § No. 238, 2025 Defendant Below, § Appellant, § Court Below–Superior Court § of the State of Delaware v. § § Cr. ID No. 2401003329 (N) STATE OF DELAWARE, § § Appellee. §

Submitted: July 11, 2025 Decided: September 29, 2025

Before VALIHURA, TRAYNOR, and LEGROW, Justices.

ORDER

After 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) Alando Dale appeals the Superior Court’s denial of his motion for the

correction of an illegal sentence. The State of Delaware has moved to affirm the

judgment below on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Dale’s opening brief

that his appeal is without merit. We agree and affirm.

(2) On September 17, 2024, Dale pleaded guilty to second-degree murder.

Following a presentence investigation, the Superior Court sentenced Dale to 30 years

of incarceration, suspended after 20 years, followed by decreasing levels of

supervision. Dale did not appeal his conviction or sentence. (3) In May 2025, Dale moved for the correction of an illegal sentence under

Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a), arguing that his sentence was illegally enhanced

under Erlinger v. United States.1 The Superior Court denied the motion, finding that

Erlinger was inapplicable. This appeal followed.

(4) We review the denial of a motion for the correction of an illegal

sentence for abuse of discretion.2 To the extent a claim involves a question of law,

we review the claim de novo.3 A sentence is illegal if it exceeds statutory limits,

violates the Double Jeopardy Clause, 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.4

(5) We agree with the Superior Court that Erlinger is not applicable here.

In Erlinger, the United States Supreme Court held that a unanimous jury must

determine beyond a reasonable doubt whether a defendant’s prior criminal offenses

were committed on separate occasions before the defendant’s sentence can be

enhanced under the Armed Career Criminal Act.5 But here, Dale’s sentence was not

enhanced based on his prior criminal convictions—the Superior Court simply

1 602 U.S. 821 (2024). 2 Fountain v. State, 2014 WL 4102069, at *1 (Del. Aug. 19, 2014). 3 Id. 4 Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998). 5 Erlinger, 602 U.S. at 825. 2 sentenced Dale within the statutory sentencing range authorized by the legislature

for second-degree murder.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to affirm

be GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court be AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Gary F. Traynor Justice