State v. Grzybowski

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE, ) ) v. ) I.D. # 1104009042 ) JASON GRZYBOWSKI, ) ) Defendant. )

Date submitted: June 27, 2025 Date decided: July 9, 2025

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S SIXTH MOTION FOR CORRECTION OF ILLEGAL SENTENCE

1. The Court issued an Order on May 14, 2025, detailing the procedural

history of Jason Grzybowski’s (“Grzybowski”) motion practice after his sentencing.1

In that Order, the Court denied Grzybowski’s motion, which argued that his sentence

was illegal under the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Erlinger v. United

States.2 The Court explained that it did not need to address Grzybowski’s argument

under Erlinger because Grzybowski agreed in the Plea Agreement that he was

eligible to be sentenced as a Habitual Offender. Having admitted he was subject to

Habitual Offender sentencing, the Court ruled that Grzybowski could not claim his

rights were violated by an enhanced sentencing under the statute.

1 D.I. 61. 2 602 U.S. 821 (2024). 2. On June 27, 2025, Grzybowski filed another Motion for Correction of

Illegal Sentence under Superior Court Rule 35(a)3 (the “Sixth Motion”). He argues

the sentence is illegal because when the court granted the State’s motion to declare

him a Habitual Offender, the court could not impose a sentence any greater than the

sentence requested by the State. In the Plea Agreement, the State agreed to cap its

recommendation at 15 years, but the court sentenced him to 18 years.

3. Grzybowski relies on Reeder v. State.4 In Reeder, the State moved to

declare the defendant a Habitual Offender on four of the 14 counts he was convicted

on after trial. The court granted the motion and sentenced the defendant to the

minimum mandatory 32 years. The State then filed a motion for correction of

sentence, arguing that the defendant was actually eligible for Habitual Offender

status on all 14 counts. The court granted the motion and sentenced the defendant

to 112 years.

4. On appeal, the defendant argued that the lower court had discretion to

declare him a Habitual Offender on one or all of the counts, meaning that the court

was not required to grant Habitual Offender status on all the counts (as requested by

the State), but could decline to grant such status on some of the counts. The

Delaware Supreme Court rejected this argument, ruling that the State has discretion

3 D.I. 62. 4 783 A.2d 124 (TABLE), 2001 WL 355732 (Del. Mar. 26, 2001). 2 to seek Habitual Offender status on each eligible charge, and the court must grant

the motion as requested by the State.5 That is, “Delaware law clearly indicates that

‘where the State initiates the habitual offender process, the court is limited to

granting only the result sought by the State.’”6 While the sentencing court has no

discretion to deny a properly filed Habitual Offender designation, the court retains

discretion in imposing a sentence within the parameters of the enhanced sentencing.

The court is not bound by the State’s sentencing recommendation and a sentence is

not illegal merely because the court imposed more time than the State recommended.

Grzybowski affirmed in the Truth-In-Sentencing form that he was subject to a

sentence range of 8 years to Life in prison. The court-imposed sentence was within

that range.

5. Grzybowski’s sentence was not illegal. The Sixth Motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

Original to Prothonotary cc: Jason R. Grzybowski (SBI#00317858) Brian Arban, Esq. Matthew C. Bloom, Esq.

5 Id., at *3. 6 Id. (citation omitted). 3