Dorsett v. State

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

DEVONTE DORSETT, § § No. 533, 2024

Defendant Below, § Appellant, § Court Below–Superior Court § of the State of Delaware v. § § Cr. ID No. 1701005259 (N)

STATE OF DELAWARE, § §

Appellee. §

Submitted: January 13, 2025 Decided: March 12, 2025

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices.

ORDER

After consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the appellee’s motion to

affirm, and the Superior Court record, we find it evident that the judgment below

should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons cited by the Superior Court in

its December 3, 2024 order denying the appellant’s motion for correction of illegal

sentence. To the extent that the appellant raised claims of ineffective assistance of

counsel in his motion, those claims are not cognizable in correction-of-illegal-

sentence proceedings. 1

1 Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998) (noting that the narrow function of a motion under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a) is to permit the correction of an illegal sentence—not to re-examine errors that occurred before sentencing).

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to affirm be

GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court be AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura Justice