State v. Fletcher

• Court: Superior Court of Delaware
• Decided: June 18, 2025
• Docket: 1806003487
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE, ) ) v. ) I.D.: 1806003487 ) ANDRE FLETCHER, ) ) Defendants. ) ORDER On Motion for Correction of an Illegal Sentence

This 18th day of June, 2025, upon consideration of the instant Motion for

Correction of an Illegal Sentence, under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a)1

brought by Defendant Andre Fletcher (“Fletcher”), it appears to the Court that:

1. Fletcher entered into a plea agreement on September 30, 2019 and

pled guilty to Murder Second Degree. Fletcher was sentenced on September 9,

2022 to thirty (30) years at Level V, suspended after twenty (20) years at Level V

for six (6) months at Level IV, followed by eighteen months (18) at Level III

probation.2 Murder in the Second Degree is a class A felony3 with a statutory

minimum sentence of 15 years of unsuspended Level V time and a maximum of

life imprisonment.4 The Delaware SENTAC guidelines provide the presumptive

sentence for Murder Second Degree is 15 years at Level V.5

1 Docket Item (“D.I.”) 56. 2 Id. p. 2. 3 11 Del. C. §635. 4 11 Del. C. §4205(b)(1). 5 2024 SENTAC Benchbook, p. 30. 2. In the instant Motion, Fletcher moves this Court for a review of his

sentence under Rule 35(a) which states “[t]he court may correct an illegal sentence

at any time and may correct a sentence imposed in an illegal manner within the

time provided herein for the reduction of sentence.”6 Citing Erlinger v. United

States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024) Fletcher claims that his due process rights were

violated because the Court, not a jury, enhanced his sentence which violates his

due process rights under Erlinger.

3. The Court does not find that the sentencing judge needed to obtain

additional facts to justify Fletcher’s Level V time, and the aggravating factor relied

on by the sentencing judge (undue depreciation of offense) was adequate to

support Fletcher’s sentence. In Shabazz v. State, the Delaware Supreme Court

held that “neither Apprendi nor Blakely impact” a judge giving a sentence within

the statutory range but above the SENTAC guideline presumptive sentence “given

the voluntary and nonbinding nature of Delaware’s sentencing guidelines.”7 The

sentencing judge was within the statutory range by imposing 30 years of Level V

time which was suspended after 20 years. The sentencing judge found an

aggravating factor which provided substantial and compelling reason to justify

surpassing the presumptive sentence. According to the SENTAC guidelines, “the

court may impose a sentence outside the standard sentence range for that offense

if it finds that there are substantial and compelling reasons justifying an

6 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(a). 7 Shabazz v. State, 877 A.2d 52, *1 (Del. 2005). exceptional sentence.”8 The Delaware Supreme Court and proceeding case law

firmly support the proposition that “the sentencing standards are considered

voluntary and nonbinding; thus, no party to a criminal case has any legal or

constitutional right to appeal to any court a statutorily authorized sentence which

does not conform to the sentencing standards.”9

4. Erlinger provides that “’[a] fact that increases” a defendant’s

exposure to punishment, whether by triggering a higher maximum or minimum

sentence, must be “submitted to a jury” and found unanimously and beyond a

reasonable doubt.”’10 The Court sentenced Fletcher within the statutory range on

the charge. The Court found no facts that enhanced the range within which

Fletcher was sentenced. Further, Erlinger, cannot be read to require the Court to

submit aggravating (or mitigating) circumstances to a jury when such

circumstances would not alter the statutory range of penalties. It is the Court, in

its discretion, not the jury that determines the proper sentence within the statutory

range. Erlinger and similar cases are not implicated.

For the above reasons, the Court finds that Fletcher’s sentence is not illegal.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th day of June, 2025.

/s/ Francis J. Jones, Jr. Francis J. Jones, Jr., Judge

cc: Original to the Prothonotary Ann Marie Pruit, Deputy Attorney General

8 2018 SENTAC Benchbook p. 132. 9 See Siple v. State, 701 A.2d 79, *2 (Del. 1997); Delaware Supreme Court Admin. Directive No. 76. 10 Erlinger, 602 U.S. at 833 (quoting Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99, 111-113).