State v. Northern
This text of State v. Northern (State v. Northern) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
STATE OF DELAWARE, ) ) ) I.D. Nos. 1501013030; 1502011707 v. ) ) ) DESHAUN NORTHERN, ) ) ) Defendant. )
ORDER
This 4th day of February 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. In 2015, the Defendant was facing a host of charges. In one set, (ID
No. 1501013030) he robbed three teenagers at gunpoint. 2 In a separate incident a 1F
week later (ID No. 1502022707), he robbed a twenty-two-year-old man and shot
him in the jaw, arm, abdomen, shoulder and leg, resulting in amputation. 3 He pled 2F
guilty to Assault First Degree, Attempted Robbery First Degree, Robbery Second
Degree and two firearms charges. 4 3F
3. The Defendant had no criminal history that enhanced any of his
sentences or increased the maximum penalty available. While there were minimum
sentences involved as set by the legislature (such as for a Class B felony), no facts
beyond those in the charges were predicates to any sentence enhancement.
Defendant says he received more than the minimum sentence he might have
received, but Erlinger does not require a jury’s fact finding when the facts do not
increase the minimum mandatory or the maximum possible sentence. Rather, the
2 State v. Northern, Delaware Superior Court Criminal Docket, ID Nos. 1501013030; 1502011707, Docket Item (hereinafter “D.I. _”) 27. 3 Id. 4 D.I. 23. 2 fifteen-year sentence imposed, spread out over the various crimes to which he pled
guilty, was well within the statutory maximum available on each charge. In short,
this is not an Erlinger claim. Erlinger is only implicated when the Court relies upon
facts to increase the minimum mandatory or that maximum available sentence. 5 4F
Neither scenario played out with respect to the Defendant’s sentencing, and he is
therefore not entitled to relief under Erlinger. The motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Charles E. Butler Charles E. Butler, Resident Judge
cc: Prothonotary Deshaun Northern (SBI # 00694595) Abigail Rodgers, Deputy Attorney General
5 Erlinger, 602 U.S. at 834. 3
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
State v. Northern, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-northern-delsuperct-2026.