State v. Edwards

CourtSuperior Court of Delaware
DecidedJune 17, 2025
Docket2212011078
StatusPublished

This text of State v. Edwards (State v. Edwards) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Edwards, (Del. Ct. App. 2025).

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE ) ) v. ) I.D. # 2212011078 ) J’SHAWN EDWARDS, ) ) Defendant. )

Submitted: June 6, 2025 Decided: June 17, 2025

ORDER

This 17th day of June 2025, upon consideration of the Motion for Correction

of an Illegal Sentence filed by Defendant J’Shawn Edwards (“Edwards”); 1 and the

record in this case, it appears to the Court that:

1. Edwards pled guilty on December 7, 2023 to Illegal Gang Participation,

Manslaughter, three counts of Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a

Felony (“PFDCF”), Conspiracy First Degree, and Reckless Endangering First

Degree. He was sentenced on February13, 2014 as follows: 25 years at Level V,

suspended after 5 years, for decreasing levels of supervision on the Manslaughter

charge; 25 years at Level V, suspended after three years for probation on each of the

PFDCF charges; five years at Level V, suspended after one year for probation on the

1 D.I. 47 reckless endangering and conspiracy charges, and three years at Level V, suspended

after one year for probation on the gang participation charge.2

2. In his Motion, Edwards argues that two of the PFDCF charges to which

he pled guilty – Counts 10 and 13 – and for which he received consecutive sentences

are the same sentence, resulting in a violation of his right to be safeguarded against

double jeopardy.3

3. Pursuant to Criminal Rule 35(a), the Court may correct an illegal

sentence at any time. 4 A sentence is illegal if it 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 the substance of the sentence, or is a sentence that the judgment of conviction

did not authorize.5 The Court may correct a sentence imposed in an illegal manner

within the time provided for the reduction of sentence which is 90 days of the

imposition of sentence. 6

2 D.I. 40. 3 Id. 4 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(a). 5 Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998). 6 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(a) and (b). 2 4. Edwards was indicted on January 3, 2023 7 and reindicted on June 5,

2023. 8 Count 10 of the Re-Indictment alleged that Edwards on or about September

24, 2020 “did knowingly and unlawfully possess a firearm…during the commission

of Attempted Murder First Degree, a felony as set forth in Count 9 of this Indictment,

which is incorporated herein by reference.” 9 The alleged victim in Count 9 was

Akeem Henry.10 Count 13 alleged that Edwards on or about September 24, 2020

“did knowingly and unlawfully possess a firearm…during the commission of

Attempted Murder First Degree, a felony as set forth in Count 12 of this Indictment,

which is incorporated herein by reference.” 11 The victim in Count 12 was Sakai

Clark. 12 The Re-Indictment was amended for the plea hearing on December 7,

2013. The amendments simply reflect the lesser included felonies of Count 9 -

Reckless Endangering First Degree - and Count 12 - Assault First Degree - to which

Edwards also entered guilty pleas.13 The amended counts allege he possessed a

firearm during the commission of two separate felonies – Reckless Endangering

First Degree in Count 10 and Assault First Degree in Count 13. While both counts

7 D.I. 2. 8 D.I. 17. 9 Id. 10 Id. 11 Id. 12 Id. 13 D.I. 26. 3 allege that Edwards violated the same statute on the same day, they allege he

possessed a firearm during the commission of different felonies with different

victims. Counts 10 and 13 do not allege the same crime and there is no double

jeopardy violation.

THEREFORE, Defendant J’Shawn Edwards’ Motion for Correction of an

Illegal sentence is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Ferris W. Wharton Ferris W. Wharton, J.

Original to Prothonotary cc: Joseph Grubb, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General Erika R. Flaschner, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General J’Shawn Edwards (SBI# 00885538) Investigative Services

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Brittingham v. State
705 A.2d 577 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
State v. Edwards, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-edwards-delsuperct-2025.