Stanley v. State

• Court: Supreme Court of Delaware
• Decided: January 30, 2024
• Docket: 456, 2023
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

GARY V. STANLEY, § § Defendant Below, § No. 456, 2023 Appellant, § § Court Below—Superior Court v. § of the State of Delaware § STATE OF DELAWARE, § Cr. ID No. 1812010757 (K) § Appellee. § §

Submitted: December 18, 2023 Decided: January 30, 2024

Before TRAYNOR, LEGROW, and GRIFFITHS, Justices.

ORDER

After consideration of the opening brief, the motion to affirm, and the record

on appeal, it appears to the Court that:

(1) The appellant, Gary V. Stanley, filed this appeal from a Superior Court

order denying his motion for correction of illegal sentence. The State of Delaware

has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment on the basis that it is manifest

on the face of Stanley’s opening brief that the appeal is without merit. We agree and

affirm.

(2) In March 2019, a grand jury indicted Stanley for multiple drug and

weapon offenses. On September 10, 2019, Stanley pleaded guilty to drug dealing,

carrying a concealed deadly weapon (“CCDW”), and possession of firearm ammunition by a person prohibited (“PABPP”). As part of the plea agreement, the

parties agreed to recommend a sentence with six years of unsuspended Level V time

followed by probation with GPS monitoring. The Superior Court conducted a plea

colloquy with Stanley and accepted his guilty plea.

(3) On November 27, 2019, the Superior Court sentenced Stanley as

follows: (i) for CCDW, eight years of Level V incarceration, suspended after five

years for eighteen months of Level III GPS; (ii) for drug dealing, fifteen years of

Level V incarceration, suspended after one year for one year of Level IV Work

Release or Home Confinement, followed by eighteen months of Level III GPS; and

(iii) for PABPP, eight years of Level V incarceration, suspended for eighteen months

of Level III GPS. Stanley did not appeal the Superior Court’s judgment, but did file

an unsuccessful motion for postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule

61.1

(4) On April 10, 2023, Stanley filed a motion for review of sentence that

sought reduction of the Level V portion of his sentence and modification of the Level

IV portion of his sentence. The Superior Court denied the motion, finding the

motion was time-barred and the sentence was imposed under a plea agreement with

a jointly recommended sentence. On November 8, 2023, Stanley filed a motion for

1 Stanley v. State, 2022 WL 518460 (Del. Feb. 21, 2022) (affirming the Superior Court’s denial of Stanley’s Rule 61 motion).

2 correction of illegal sentence under Rule 35(a). The Superior Court denied the

motion, finding the sentence was imposed pursuant to a plea agreement and was

appropriate for all of the reasons stated at sentencing. This appeal followed.

(5) This Court reviews the denial of a motion for correction of illegal

sentence for abuse of discretion.2 We review questions of law de novo.3 Rule 35(a)

permits the Superior Court to correct an illegal sentence “at any time.”4 A sentence

is illegal if it exceeds statutory limits, violates double jeopardy, 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

(6) As he did below, Stanley argues in his opening brief that his CCDW

sentence is illegal because the sentencing order and Department of Correction

records are internally contradictory. He is mistaken. In the sentencing order, the

CCDW sentence is eight years of Level V incarceration, suspended after five years

for eighteen months of Level III GPS. In the Department of Correction records

Stanley provides, the CCDW sentence is described as eight years of Level V

incarceration, suspended after five years at Level V to be followed by “GPS

2 Fountain v. State, 100 A.3d 1021, 2014 WL 4102069, at *1 (Del. Aug. 19, 2014) (TABLE). 3 Id. 4 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(a). 5 Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998).

3 [eighteen] months at Level [III].”6 There is no internal contradiction. Stanley’s

argument otherwise relies on a condition in the sentencing order that requires GPS

monitoring during Home Confinement, but that reliance is misplaced. That

condition is part of Stanley’s drug dealing sentence and only applies if he is placed

on Level IV Home Confinement for that sentence instead of Level IV Work Release.

(7) Stanley also requests removal of the GPS monitoring condition. The

Superior Court may reduce the “term or conditions of partial confinement or

probation, at any time,” but will not consider repetitive requests for sentence

reduction.7 Stanley has not shown that the Superior Court abused its discretion in

denying his motion based on the parties’ plea agreement and the court’s conclusion

that the sentence remained appropriate.

(8) Finally, although Stanley has not raised this issue, his eighteen-month

probation sentence for PABPP exceeds the one-year statutory limit for felonies that

are neither violent nor drug-related.8 The PABPP probation sentence therefore must

be corrected.

6 App. to Opening Br., Ex. 4 (Offender Status Sheet). 7 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b). 8 11 Del. C. § 4333(b)(3) (providing that the period of probation for a crime that is not designated a violent felony under § 4201(c) or set forth in Title 16 shall not be more than one year).

4 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is

GRANTED, the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED, and Stanley’s

sentence is REMANDED for correction of the probation sentence imposed for his

PABPP conviction. Jurisdiction is not retained.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Abigail M. LeGrow Justice