Shaw v. State

• Court: Supreme Court of Delaware
• Decided: September 25, 2024
• Docket: 208, 2024
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

CONRITH A. SHAW, § § No. 208, 2024 Defendant Below, § Appellant, § Court Below–Superior Court § of the State of Delaware v. § § Cr. ID No. 2207003653 (S) STATE OF DELAWARE, § § Appellee. §

Submitted: July 24, 2024 Decided: September 25, 2024

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and GRIFFITHS, 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) Conrith Shaw appeals the Superior Court’s denial of his motion for

correction of an illegal sentence. The State has filed a motion to affirm the judgment

below on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Shaw’s opening brief that his

appeal is without merit. We agree and affirm.

(2) In January 2023, a Superior Court grand jury charged Shaw by

indictment with five counts of second-degree rape. On August 9, 2023, Shaw

entered a “no contest” plea to one count of second-degree rape. In exchange for his

plea, the State agreed to dismiss the remaining charges and cap its sentencing recommendation to fifteen years of incarceration. Following a presentence

investigation, the Superior Court sentenced Shaw to fifteen years of incarceration

followed by decreasing levels of supervision. Shaw did not appeal his conviction or

sentence.

(3) In March 2024, Shaw filed a motion for the correction of an illegal

sentence under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a). In the one-page motion, Shaw

claimed that his attorney had “forged” a form waiving Shaw’s right to a preliminary

hearing and prosecution by indictment and consenting to the State proceeding by

information. Shaw also asserted that his sentence violates the Double Jeopardy

Clause and is internally contradictory. Shaw included with his motion a copy of the

grand jury’s indictment with the notation, “No Signatures!!! Or Date.” On April 16,

2024, the Superior Court denied the motion. In so doing, the Superior Court declined

to address Shaw’s argument that his preliminary hearing had been impermissibly

waived because “that happened in the Court of Common Pleas.”1 The Superior

Court also told Shaw that the signature page of the grand jury’s indictment is “not

allowed to be shared.”2 Finally, the Superior Court noted that trial counsel had filed

the waiver form because she believed a plea deal had been reached; after plea

1 State’s Mot. to Affirm, Ex. A. 2 Id. 2 negotiations fell apart, the waiver was withdrawn and the State proceeded to present

its case to the grand jury. This appeal followed.

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

abuse of discretion.3 To the extent a claim involves a question of law, we review the

claim de novo.4 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.5

(5) In his opening brief on appeal, Shaw argues that the denial of his Rule

35(a) motion was an abuse of discretion because: (i) the Superior Court “refused” to

address Shaw’s argument that his attorney improperly waived his right to a

preliminary hearing and prosecution by indictment on his behalf, and (ii) the

Superior Court’s explanation for the grand jury’s “fatally defective indictment” was

flawed. We find no merit to Shaw’s arguments.

(6) The narrow function of Rule 35(a) is to permit the correction of an

illegal sentence.6 A motion for correction of an illegal sentence presupposes a valid

3 Fountain v. State, 2014 WL 4102069, at *1 (Del. Aug. 19, 2014). 4 Id. 5 Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998). 6 Id. 3 conviction and is not a means for a defendant to raise allegations of error in the

proceedings leading to his conviction.7 In other words, the use of a Rule 35(a)

motion to challenge the validity of the grand jury’s indictment falls outside the

limited scope of Rule 35(a).8 And by pleading guilty,9 Shaw waived his right to

“challenge any errors or defects before the plea, even those of constitutional

dimension.”10 In any event, even assuming arguendo that trial counsel did not have

Shaw’s permission to waive his right to a preliminary hearing or prosecution by

indictment, Shaw suffered no harm because that waiver was withdrawn and the State

proceeded to prosecute Shaw by indictment. Once the grand jury indicted Shaw,

moreover, any need for a preliminary hearing was eliminated because “[t]he

indictment itself is in effect a finding of probable cause.”11 To lay to rest any

remaining concerns Shaw may have concerning the legitimacy of the grand jury’s

indictment, the Court has reviewed the Superior Court’s file and can confirm that

the grand jury’s indictment is time-stamped January 9, 2023, and bears the signatures

of the grand jury foreperson, the grand jury secretary, and the prosecuting deputy

7 Id. 8 Warnick v. State, 2017 WL 1056130, at *1 (Del. Mar. 20, 2017). 9 A “no contest” plea has the same legal effect of a guilty plea. See Palmer v. State, 2022 WL 871024, at *2 (Del. Mar. 23, 2022). 10 Smith v. State, 2004 WL 120530, at *1 (Del. Jan. 15, 2004); Melton v. State, 2013 WL 4538071, at *1 (“Because [the defendant] pleaded guilty to the charges against him, he has waived any claim of a double jeopardy violation.”). 11 Joy v. Superior Ct., 298 A.2d 315, 316 (Del. 1972) (“It is quite clear that an indictment for a felony by the Grand Jury eliminates the need for a preliminary hearing.”). 4 attorney general. The Court has also carefully reviewed Shaw’s sentence and finds

it to be legal in all respects.

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

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

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. Chief Justice