State v. Fletcher
Opinion
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
STATE OF DELAWARE, ) ) v. ) I.D. No. 2103013368 ) DAVID A. FLETCHER, ) ) Defendant. )
Date submitted: June 2, 2025 Date Decided: July 9, 2025
ORDER DENYING RULE 35(A) MOTION
Having considered defendant’s Motion for Correction of Illegal Sentence
pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a) (the “Motion”),1 for the following
reasons, the Motion is DENIED.
1. On July 6, 2021, David Fletcher (“Fletcher”) was indicted on charges
of First Degree Murder, Possession of a Deadly Weapon During Commission of a
Felony (“PDWDCF”), and Possession of a Deadly Weapon by a Person Prohibited.
2. On March 24, 2022, Fletcher pleaded guilty to Murder Second and
PDWDCF. The Truth-In-Sentencing (“TIS”) form reflected that Fletcher faced a
prison term of 17 years (minimum mandatory) to Life. Fletcher signed the TIS form
acknowledging that he understood the possible sentence. At the plea hearing, the
1 D.I. 53. court conducted a colloquy. Fletcher affirmed that he was facing a sentence of 15
years (minimum mandatory) to Life on the Murder Second charge and 2 years
(minimum mandatory) to 25 years on the PDWDCF charge.
3. Fletcher was sentenced on March 31, 2023, as follows: Murder Second
– 23 years at Level V, followed by decreasing levels of supervision, and PDWDCF
– 2 years at Level V, followed by Level III supervision.
4. In the Motion, Fletcher argues that under Erlinger v. United States,2
Wooden v. United States,3 Apprendi v. New Jersey,4 and Blakely v. Washington5, “a
jury must find the existence of ‘any facts’ [-] statutory or non-statutory [-] that has
been alleged by the State before sentencing a defendant to an enhanced sentence.”6
He asserts that the State must prove each charge beyond a reasonable doubt, and
because no jury made such findings, his sentence is illegal.7
5. Under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a), the Court “may correct an
illegal sentence at any time.”8 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
2 602 U.S. 821 (2024). 3 595 U.S. 360 (2002). 4 530 U.S. 466 (2000). 5 542 U.S. 296 (2004). 6 D.I. 24. 7 Id. 8 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(a). 2 uncertain as to its substance, or is a sentence that the judgment of conviction did not authorize.9
6. Murder Second is a Class A Violent Felony, which carries a statutory
penalty of 15 years to Life at Level V.10 Under the Delaware Sentencing
Accountability Commission (“SENTAC”) guidelines, the presumptive sentence is
15 years at Level V. PDWDCF is a Class B Violent Felony, with a statutory penalty
of 2-25 years at Level V.11 Under SENTAC guidelines, the presumptive sentence is
2-5 years at Level V.
7. The charges arose out of Fletcher killing his wife, to which he admitted.
He stabbed her while they were in a car, and after she ran, he chased her and
continued to stab her. Ultimately, she suffered stab wounds to the head, both lungs,
the stomach, and arm. In imposing the sentence, the court considered the
Presentencing Investigative Report, letters from the victim’s family and friends, the
impact statement from her daughter, and the mitigation report, among other things.
The sentencing judge described it as a “very brutal case,” which was marked by
years of abuse by Fletcher towards his wife. The court cited aggravating factors of
lack of remorse and prior abuse of the victim. The court found that the “violent and
brutal murder” “[v]astly outweigh[ed] any mitigating factors.”
9 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). 10 11 Del. C. § 4205(b)(1). 11 Id. 3 8. The sentencing judge exercised her discretion, imposing a sentence of
23 years on the Murder Second charge. While above the minimum mandatory and
SENTEAC guidelines, it is not illegal.12 A sentence of 23 years at Level V is within
the statutory limits. The PDWDCF was within both statutory limits and SENTAC
guidelines.
9. After the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Erlinger13 in June
2024, Fletcher, like many other defendants serving Level V sentences, filed the
Motion under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a), arguing that his sentence was
illegal because it violated his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights as a jury did not
make factual findings as to each charge before imposing enhanced sentencing.
10. Erlinger ruled that “‘any fact’ that ‘increase[s] the prescribed range of
penalties to which a criminal defendant is exposed’ must be resolved by a unanimous
jury beyond a reasonable doubt (or freely admitted in a guilty plea).”14 Case law
12 Wallace v. State, 326 A.3d 708 (TABLE), 2024 WL 3874151, at *5 (Del. Aug. 20, 2024) (“[A] sentence is not illegal simply because it exceeds the SENTAC guidelines.” (quoting Smith v. State, 287 A.3d 1159 (TABLE), 2022 WL 17087056, at *2 (Del. Nov. 18, 2022)) (citing Richmond v. State, 279 A.3d 815(TABLE), 2022 WL 2276282, at *2 (Del. June 22, 2022)). See also Siple v. State, 701 A.2d 79, 82 (Del. 1997) (“The [SENTAC] 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.”). 13 602 U.S. 821 (2024). 14 Id. at 835 (cleaned up); Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99, 111-13, (2013) (“‘[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.’”; Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000) (“[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”). 4 makes clear “that the ‘statutory maximum’ for Apprendi purposes is the maximum
sentence a judge may impose solely on the basis of the facts reflected in the jury
verdict or admitted by the defendant.”15
11. Fletcher pled guilty, thereby admitting to the elements of Murder
Second. He consented to a waiver of his right to a jury trial and affirmed that he was
subject to a sentence of 17 years to Life. Fletcher was sentenced within the statutory
limits. The sentencing judge did not determine any fact which increased Fletcher’s
minimum or maximum penalty. Thus, he was not subjected to enhanced sentencing.
Erlinger has no application here.16
12. Fletcher’s sentence was not illegal. The Motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Kathleen M. Miller Kathleen M. Miller, Judge
Original to Prothonotary cc: David Fletcher (SBI# 439350) Timothy G. Maguire, Esq.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
State v. Fletcher (State v. Fletcher) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.