State v. Daniels

• Court: Superior Court of Delaware
• Decided: May 19, 2025
• Docket: 1509003025
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE, ) ) v. ) I.D. No. 1509003025 ) SHAWN D. DANIELS, ) ) Defendant. ) )

ORDER LIFTING THE STAY AND DENYING RULE 35(A) MOTION

Having considered Shawn D. Daniels’ (“Daniels”) Motion for Correction of

Illegal Sentence under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a)1 and Argument of Facts

to Support Recently Submitted 35(a)2 (together, the “Motion”), for the reasons that

follow, the Motion is DENIED.

Introduction

1. After the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Erlinger v. United

States3 in June 2024, many Delaware inmates filed motions under Superior Court

Criminal Rule 35(a) arguing that their sentence was illegal. Due to the significant

number of motions seeking relief under Erlinger, the Court coordinated with counsel

to establish a consolidated briefing schedule for a subset of the cases (i.e., the

1 D.I. 96. 2 D.I. 98. 3 602 U.S. 821 (2024). Bellwether Cases).4 Many of the remaining motions, including this one, were stayed

pending a ruling in the Bellwether Cases.5 Daniels moved to lift the stay, making

the same arguments he made in the Motion,6 which was denied.7

2. Upon further review of Daniels’ Motion, the Court has determined that

because of Daniels’ plea, there is no need to wait for a ruling in the Bellwether Cases

to address the Motion. Accordingly, the stay is hereby lifted.

Procedural and Factual Background

3. On March 7, 2016, Daniels pled guilty to Possession of a Firearm by a

Person Prohibited (“PFBPP”).8 In the Plea Agreement, Daniels agreed that he was

eligible to be sentenced as a Habitual Offender under 11 Del. C. § 4214(a) based on

the following convictions: Distribution within 300 feet of a Park (2005), Possession

of a Firearm by a Person Prohibited (2002), Possession of a Firearm by a Person

Prohibited (2000), and Maintaining a Vehicle (2010). The Plea Agreement stated

that the State intended to file a motion seeking to declare Daniels a Habitual

4 State v. Larrice S. Asberry—ID No. 9705019895, State v. Ansara M. Brown—ID No. 1205025968A, State v. Michael D. Chambers—ID No. 0311009491A, State v. Joshua A. Chattin— ID No. 1510013711A, State v. Troy M. Dixon—ID No. 1211005646A, State v. James J. Durham— ID No. 1003006262, State v. Gigere F. Jackson—ID No. 1707014544, State v. Roger L. Johnson— ID No. 9908000065, State v. Tyrone A. Miles—ID No. 0709015392A, State v. Kori A. Thomas— ID Nos. 1705004684 / 1705004742, State v. Jeffrey W. Thomas—ID No. 1403008516, and State v. Daemont L. Wheeler—ID No. 0911008949. 5 D.I. 99. The stay was entered on March 14, 2025. 6 D.I. 100, filed on April 9, 2025. 7 D.I. 101, filed on April 24, 2025. 8 D.I. 15, 25. 2 Offender. As Daniels acknowledged on the Truth-In-Sentencing form, he faced 15

years minimum mandatory at Level V and up to life in prison. The State agreed to

cap its recommendation of Level V time at 15 years.9

4. On April 19, 2016, Daniels filed a Motion to Withdraw his Guilty

Plea.10 After the motion was fully briefed, the Court denied it on July 29, 2016.11

5. On September 9, 2016, the State filed an Amended Motion to Declare

Daniels a Habitual Offender, pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 4214(b).12 The Habitual

Offender reflected the following felony convictions:

Offense Offense Date Conviction Date Sentence Date PFBPP (non-violent felony)13 July 18, 2000 Oct. 18, 2000 Oct. 18, 2000 PFBPP (non-violent felony) Oct. 22, 2001 Oct. 28, 2002 Oct. 28, 2002 Distribution within 300 feet of Apr. 19, 2005 June 20, 2005 Sept. 2, 2005 a Park (violent felony)14 Maintaining a Vehicle to Dec. 2. 2009 May 17, 2010 Sept. 10, 2010 Keep Controlled Substances (non-violent felony)

9 D.I. 15. 10 D.I. 17. 11 D.I. 41. 12 D.I. 37. The State previously filed Motion to Declare Daniels a Habitual Offender under Section 4214(a), but filed the amended motion to reflect the substantive changes in the then-recent amendment to the statute. See D.I. 36. 13 The motion noted that the offense of PFBPP was first classified as a violent felony in 2003. The 2000 and 2001 PFBPP charges predated the reclassification. 14 At the time of the offense, Distribution within 300 feet of a Park was classified as a violent felony. See 1996 Delaware Laws Ch. 477 (H.B. 507). 3 6. Due to the then-recently amended Habitual Offender statute, the State

clarified that if the Court granted the State’s motion, Daniels faced 7½ years of

minimum mandatory prison time, instead of 15 years.15 At the September 26, 2018,

sentencing hearing, the Court granted the State’s motion, declaring Daniels a

Habitual Offender.16 The State requested 15 years at Level V, and Daniels requested

7½ years.17 The Court sentenced Daniels to 13 ½ years at Level V.18

7. In 2021, Daniels filed a Motion for Correction of Illegal Sentence under

Rule 35(a).19 Daniels argued that the prior offenses the State relied on to declare

him a Habitual Offender did not satisfy Section 4214(b). He asserted that the two

PFBPP charges were not violent felonies and the remaining two charges were no

longer violent felonies under the Ned Carpenter Act. Daniels argued that the 2015

PFBPP offense was not a violent offense and with no prior violent felonies, he could

not be declared a Habitual Offender.20

8. The State responded that Daniels was correct – Section 4214(b) was not

satisfied. The State asserted that the reference to subsection (b) was a scrivener’s

error, and its motion should have reflected subsection (a). The State contended that

15 D.I. 36. 16 D.I. 35. 17 D.I. 39. 18 D.I. 37. 19 D.I. 71. 20 See also D.I. 75. 4 Daniels’ sentence was proper under subsection (a) and requested that the Court deny

the motion.21

9. On January 31, 2022, the Court denied Daniels’ Rule 35(a) motion,

finding that the reference to subsection (b) was a typographical error and that Daniels

was appropriately declared a Habitual Offender under Section 4214(a), by reason of

having four prior felonies.22 A Corrected Sentencing Order was entered on February

1, 2022, and reflected the declaration as a Habitual Offender under 11 Del. C. §

4214(a).23

10. Daniels filed a motion for reargument, which he subsequently

supplemented, again asserting that he had no violent felony convictions prior to the

2015 PFBBP charge and therefore, the 2015 conviction was not a violent felony.24

After the State’s response,25 and Daniels’ reply,26 the Court ruled on the motion on

July 13, 2022.27 The Court noted that Daniels pled guilty to a single count of PFBBP

“in exchange for a dismissal of the other indicted charges and a favorable sentencing

recommendation.”28 Delaware’s Habitual Offender statute was amended after

21 D.I. 74. 22 D.I. 78. 23 D.I. 79. 24 D.I. 80-83. 25 D.I. 85. 26 D.I. 86. 27 State v. Daniels, 2022 WL 2733509 (Del. Super. July 13, 2022). 28 Id. at *1. 5 Daniels’ plea but before his sentencing. The parties agreed to apply the new statutory

provisions, which benefitted Daniels because it allowed his counsel to argue for a

sentence “to less than the 15 years required by the pre-July-2016” amendments.29

The Court stated that, at sentencing, it exercised its discretion to sentence Daniels to

13½ years, the first 10 of which were minimum mandatory under Section

1448(e)(1)(c).30

11. The Court recognized that Daniels was attempting to violate his plea

agreement, with the Court’s assistance, by challenging his designation as a Habitual

Offender, despite his acknowledgment of his habitual criminal status both verbally

at the plea hearing and in writing.31 While his acknowledgments should have been

sufficient to dispose of his motion, the Court went on to address the merits “for

avoidance of any doubt” that his representations were truthful.

12. The Court noted what Daniels did not dispute: that (1) he had “no less

than the four prior felony convictions listed in his plea agreement and the State’s

amend motion”; “if he had a prior conviction for any violent felony, then his 2015

PFBPP is itself a violent felony”; and that the definition of “‘violent felony’ as that

29 Id. at *1. 30 Id. at *2 (citing § 1448(e)(1)(c) (a person convicted of PFBBP “shall receive a minimum sentence of: Ten years at Level V, if the person has been convicted on 2 or more separate occasions of any violent felony.”)). Daniels sentence was affirmed on direct appeal. Daniels v. State, 2017 WL 2812926 (Del. June 28, 2017). 31 State v. Daniels, 2022 WL 2733509, at *4. 6 term is used in both § 1448(e) and § 4214 is controlled by the version of § 4201(c)

in effect at the time he committed his 2015 PFBPP.”32 Turning to the question of

whether Daniels had a prior violent felony at the time of the 2015 PFBPP charge, the

Court stated:

While he’d rather not, one must first look to Daniels’ 1997 conviction for Possession with Intent to Deliver Marijuana in violation of 16 Del. C. § 4752. That felony was not just a designated violent felony on the § 4201(c) list in 2015, it has been a constant on the § 4201(c) list of violent felonies. And it is that felony that first made Daniels a person prohibited. Inarguably then, his 2000 PFBPP conviction is—for § 1448, § 4201(c), and § 4214 purposes—a Title 11 violent felony. So too is Daniels’ 2002 PFBPP conviction. And while the remaining felony drug convictions alleged in the State’s amended habitual criminal petition would not count in this case as “violent” felonies for aggravated sentencing enhancement under § 1448 or § 4214, they certainly remain in the base equation to calculate Daniels’ habitual criminal status.33

13. The Court concluded: “Given controlling law at the time of Daniels’

crime and sentencing, his 2015 PFBPP conviction was no doubt eligible for

enhanced sentencing under 11 Del. C. § 1448(e)(1)(c) and, therefore, could properly

be deemed a subsequent triggering Title 11 violent felony under § 4214(b).”34

14. The Court also found that the February 1, 2022 Corrected Sentencing

Order reflecting the declaration as a Habitual Offender under Section 4214(a) was

32 State v. Daniels, 2022 WL 2733509, at *4. 33 Id. at *5 (citations omitted). 34 Id. 7 incorrect, and Daniels was properly declared a Habitual Offender under Section

4214(b).35 The Court ruled that Daniels’ sentence was not illegal and denied his

motion.36

15. Daniels appealed the Court’s ruling, which the Delaware Supreme

Court affirmed on January 12, 2023.37

16. In the Motion, Daniels again challenges his status as a Habitual

Offender. He argues that under Erlinger, Wooden v. United States,38 Apprendi v. New

Jersey,39 and other cases, “a jury must find the existence of any facts [-] statutory or

non statutory [sic] [-] that ha[ve] been alleged by the State before sentencing a[]

defendant to an enhanced sentence.”40 He asserts that Delaware’s sentencing

guidelines “specify that enhancements based on [prior convictions] are permissible

only if factors have [been] proven beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury. Delaware

law prohibits enhancing a sentence based on factors not substantiated through a jury

trial or an admission from the defendant.”41

35 Id. at n.13. A Corrected Sentencing Order reflecting the declaration of Habitual Offender under Section 4214(b) was entered on July 13, 2022. D.I. 88. 36 Id. at *6. 37 D.I. 93. 38 595 U.S. 360 (2002). 39 530 U.S. 466 (2000). 40 D.I. 96. 41 D.I. 101. 8 Standard of Review

17. Under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a), the Court “may correct an

illegal sentence at any time.”42 Rule 35(a) relief is limited to instances “when the

sentence imposed exceeds statutorily-authorized 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.”43

18. Under Delaware’s Habitual Offender statute, 11 Del. C. § 4214, when

a defendant is convicted of the requisite number of felonies, he/she may be declared

a Habitual Offender. The Delaware Supreme Court has made clear that “when a

procedurally adequate petition demonstrating the existence of the requisite number

of prior felony convictions is filed – this Court’s declaration of habitual criminal

status is not discretionary.”44 Thus, “where the State initiates the Habitual Offender

process, the court is limited to granting only the result sought by the State.”45

42 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(a). 43 Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998) (citations omitted). See Ellerbe v. State, 155 A.3d 1283 (TABLE), 2017 WL 462144, at *1 (Del. Feb. 2, 2017). 44 State v. Peters, 283 A.3d 668, 690 (Del. Super. 2022) (citing Reeder v. State, 2001 WL 355732, at *3 (Del. Mar. 26, 2001) (“We disagree that habitual offender status is discretionary under § 4214.”); Brown v. State, 2020 WL 609646, at *2 (Del. Feb. 7, 2020)). 45 Id. (citation omitted). 9 Discussion

19. The Court does not reach Daniels’ argument under Erlinger and the

other cases he cites because in the Plea Agreement, Daniels agreed that he was

eligible to be sentenced as a Habitual Offender. Daniels also acknowledged in the

Truth-In-Sentencing form that he faced a statutory minimum penalty of 15 years.

20. As the Court previously found, Daniels acknowledged his habitual

criminal status in writing and verbally at the plea hearing. Also, the Court has

already thoroughly reviewed Daniels’ prior convictions and found that he was

properly sentenced under the Habitual Offender statute, which was affirmed by the

Delaware Supreme Court.

21. Having admitted that he was subject to Habitual Offender sentencing,

Daniels cannot now claim his rights were violated by an enhanced sentence without

a jury determination.

22. Daniels’ sentence was not illegal. The Motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

May 19, 2025

/s/Kathleen M. Miller Kathleen M. Miller, Judge

Original to Prothonotary cc: Shawn D. Daniels (SBI#00355256) Brian Arban, Esq. Matthew Bloom, Esq. 10 11