State v. Fairley

• Court: Superior Court of Delaware
• Decided: April 1, 2026
• Docket: 1809000335
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE, ) ) ) I.D. No. 1809000335 v. ) ) ) VICTOR FAIRLEY, ) ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER

This 1st day of April 2026, the Court enters the following Order:

ORDER LIFTING STAY

1. The Defendant filed a motion under Rule 35(a) for relief from an

allegedly illegal sentence pursuant to the ruling of the United States Supreme Court

in Erlinger v. United States. 1 This was but one of a barrage of “Erlinger claims” 0F

from inmates at the Department of Correction filed throughout the Superior Court.

In order to allow for an orderly consideration of the Erlinger case, the Court stayed

further action until the decisional law began to develop as to the judicial response to

Erlinger. While further litigation may well yield refinements in the Court’s

1 Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024). treatment of Erlinger claims, many are now ripe for resolution and the Court

therefore enters this Order lifting the stay in those cases whose resolution is clear

from the developing case law.

ORDER ON THE MERITS

2. Victor Fairley was one of over twenty individuals arrested and charged

in connection with a drug investigation that utilized wiretaps. 2 Due to his criminal 1F

history, he was subject to sentencing as a habitual offender. The wiretap was subject

to a motion to suppress, which was denied by the Court after a hearing. 3 F

3. After the usual pretrial proceedings, Fairley pled guilty to 1)

Racketeering, a Class B felony carrying from two to twenty-five years in prison and

2) Drug Dealing Tier 4 (heroin) also a Class B felony. 4 The State agreed to “cap” 3F

its sentencing recommendation at twenty years. 5 The Defendant further added that 4F

he

Agrees he is eligible to be sentenced as a Habitual Offender under 11 Del. C. §4214(b) due to the following prior convictions: Possession of a Deadly Weapon by a Person Prohibited (2005); PWID (2007); Poss w/in 1000 feet of a school (2009); Drug Dealing Tier 2 (2013); Poss of

2 State v. Fairley, Superior Court Criminal Docket, ID No. 1809000335, Docket Item (hereinafter “D.I. _”) 6. 3 D.I. 26, 31. 4 D.I. 33. 5 Id.

2 a Firearm by a Person Prohibited (2013); Conspiracy 2nd Degree (2013). 65F

4. Defendant and his attorney signed the Plea Agreement as well as the

Truth in Sentencing Guilty Plea Form, in which he agreed that the sentence he faced

included a possible life sentence as a habitual offender on the Racketeering count. 7 6F

5. The State thereafter filed the habitual offender motion, setting forth as

exhibits the detailed sequencing of offense, arrest, conviction, sentencing, and new

offense needed to satisfy the habitual offender statute. 8 None of these documents 7F

call into question any of the ambiguities of a “different occasions inquiry” required

under the federal Armed Career Criminal Act as examined in Erlinger. Rather, the

State’s habitual offender motion consisted of indictments, plea agreements, docket

entries, and sentencing orders – the type of documents referred to by the Erlinger

Court as “Shepard documents.” 9 “[A] sentencing judge may use the information he 8F

gleans from Shepard documents for the ‘limited function’ of determining the fact of

a prior conviction and the then-existing elements of that offense.” 10 9F

6. The Defendant did not – and has never – controverted any allegation of

the habitual motion, thus suggesting that had a jury been empaneled to consider the

6 Id. 7 Id. 8 D.I. 34. 9 Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821, 823 (2024). See Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005). 10 Erlinger, 602 U.S. at 839 (citing Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254, 260 (2013)).

3 motion, the Defendant would have had no factual issue to put to the jury. His case

thus falls in line with the class of cases to which Erlinger does not extend relief.

Defendant freely admitted his prior record subjected him to the enhanced sentencing

provisions of the habitual offender act. His motion therefore must be DENIED and

his motion for appointment of counsel is MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Charles E. Butler Charles. E. Butler, Resident Judge

cc: Prothonotary Victor Fairley (SBI # 00438197) Cynthia Hurlock, Deputy Attorney General