State v. Hilton

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE, ) ) ) I.D.: 2008002632 v. ) ) AQUAN HILTON ) ) Defendant. )

Submitted: June 13, 2025 Decided: July 7, 2025

ORDER On Defendant’s Motion for Correction of an Illegal Sentence

DENIED

This 7th day of July, 2025, upon consideration of the instant Motion for

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

brought by Defendant Aquan Hilton (“Hilton”), it appears to the Court that:

1. A stipulated bench trial for Hilton’s Possession of a Firearm by a Person

Prohibited (“PFBPP”) charge was held on May 9, 2022.2 Based on the stipulated

facts presented, the Presiding Judge found Hilton guilty of PFBPP.3 The

stipulation, signed by counsel and Hilton, was represented by defense counsel as

1 Docket Item (“D.I.”) 59. 2 D.I. 35. 3 Id. 11:16-20 (“I find the defendant is guilty of possession of a firearm by a person prohibited in violation of Title 11 §1448 of the Delaware Code based on the stipulation of fact…) true and accurate, and the Court accepted the stipulation as a court exhibit.4 The

stipulation stated, inter alia:

The Defendant on or about the 7th day of August, 2020, in the County of New Castle, State of Delaware, did knowingly possess or control a firearm, as defined in Title 11, Section 222 of the Delaware Code.

The Defendant was, on August 7, 2020, prohibited from possessing or controlling a firearm due to prior felony convictions for Drug Dealing, case no. 1504015200 (Convicted on August 17, 205) and Robbery First Degree, case no. 1105021161 (Convicted on December 8, 2011).5

2. On the same day, the Presiding Judge, also acting as Sentencing Judge, then

sentenced Hilton to fifteen (15) years at Level V, suspended after ten (10) years

for one (1) year at Level III.6 Ten (10) years at Level V is the minimum-

mandatory for PFBPP with two prior felony convictions and was the

recommended sentence by the attorneys.7

3. In the instant Motion, Hiltons 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.”8 A sentence is illegal and should be

4 Id. 10:4-16; D.I. 30. 5 D.I. 30 ¶¶ 11,12. 6 See Sentence Order. 7 D.I. 35 8:18-20; 11 Del. C. § 1448(e) (“[A]ny person who is a prohibited person as described in this section and who knowingly possesses, purchase, owns or controls a firearm…while so prohibited shall receive a minimum sentence of: ten years at Level V, if the person has been convicted on 2 or more separate occasions of any violent felony.” 8 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(a). afforded relief under Rule 35(a) if it “exceeds the 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 uncertain as to the substance of the sentence,

or is a sentence which the judgment of conviction did not authorize.”9 Rule 35(a)

further allows the Court to correct a sentence imposed in an illegal manner within

90 days of the imposition of the sentence.10

4. Hilton argues under Erlinger v. United States11 that the Sentencing Judge violated

his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights by subjecting Hilton to an enhanced

sentence without submitting the facts to a jury to decide.12

5. It is unnecessary for the Court to conclude whether the instant Motion is one for

correction of an illegal sentence or a time-barred motion for an illegally imposed

sentence. A retroactive application of Erlinger is also unwarranted for this

analysis. The Court need only review Hilton’s signed Stipulation of Fact and the

statutorily imposed minimum-mandatory for his conviction.

6. Erlinger holds “[a] fact that increases a defendant’s exposure to punishment,

whether by triggering a higher maximum or minimum sentence, must be

9 Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998) (quoting United States v. Pavlico, 961 F.2d 440, 443 (4th Cir. 1992); United States v. Dougherty, 106 F.3d 1514, 1515 (10th Cir. 1997)). 10 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(a). 11 602 U.S. 821 (2024). 12 D.I. 59. submitted to a jury and found unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt.”13

However, the United States Supreme Court has made it 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”.14 Hilton stipulated to the facts that he was knowingly in possession

of a firearm on the date of the incident and that, prior to the incident, he was

charged with two felony convictions which prohibited him from possessing or

controlling a firearm15 and that those felonies were on separate occasions.

Additionally, Hilton represented to the Court that he understood and chose to

waive his right to a jury trial and, instead, wished to present the facts to the Judge

and have the Judge decide the outcome under stipulated facts.16 Therefore, the

Sentencing Judge did not unilaterally determined a fact which increased the

minimum or maximum of Hilton’s sentence that was not agreed to by the

defendant. Further, the Sentencing Judge followed the statutory requirements in

ordering a ten (10) year minimum mandatory for Hiltons PFBPP charge.

13 State v. Roy, 2025 WL 1411659, at *2 (Del. Super. May 14, 2025)(quoting Erlinger, 602 U.S. at 833). 14 Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 303-304 (2004). 15 D.I. 30 ¶¶ 11,12. 16 D.I. 30 5:6-9:6. 7. For these reasons, the Court DENIES Hilton’s Motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Francis J. Jones, Jr. Francis J. Jones, Jr., Judge

cc: Original to the Prothonotary Delaware Department of Justice, Criminal Division Aquan Hilton, JTVCC, SBI No. 00523365