Rose v. State

• Court: Supreme Court of Delaware
• Decided: May 22, 2025
• Docket: 504, 2024
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

O’NEIL ROSE, § § No. 504, 2024 Plaintiff Below, § Appellant, § Court Below—Superior Court § of the State of Delaware v. § § Cr. ID No. 1206001558 (N) STATE OF DELAWARE, § § Appellee. § §

Submitted: April 22, 2025 Decided: May 22, 2025

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; LEGROW and GRIFFITHS, Justices.

ORDER

After consideration of O’Neil Rose’s opening brief, the State’s motion to

affirm, and the record on appeal, we conclude that the judgment below should be

affirmed on the basis of and for reasons cited by the Superior Court in its November

4, 2024 order denying Rose’s motion for correction of illegal sentence. As the

Superior Court correctly held, each of the possession of a firearm during the

commission of a felony convictions (“PFDCF”) that Rose challenges is attached to

a separate and distinct felony with a different victim and does not violate the Double

Jeopardy Clause.1

1 See, e.g., Cooper v. State, 2019 WL 494139, at *2 (Del. Feb. 7, 2019) (rejecting Double Jeopardy challenge to separate sentences for assault, burglary, attempted robbery, and related PFDCF NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Affirm is

GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT: /s/ N. Christopher Griffiths Justice

convictions that arose from one home invasion because the “conduct during the home invasion constituted distinct crimes of violence against five victims”); Fletcher v. State, 2015 WL 790206, at *2 (Del. Feb. 24, 2015) (holding three PFDCF convictions based on three different drug felonies were legal); Chandler v. State, 2015 WL 733633, at *1 (Del. Feb. 19, 2015) (“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.”); Wright v. State, 2010 WL 2163851, at *2 (Del. May 10, 2010) (discussing how defendant who fired into a crowd multiple times could be charged with multiple counts of reckless endangering). 2