State v. Nurse

• Court: Superior Court of Delaware
• Decided: July 24, 2025
• Docket: 1007020056
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE, ) ) ) I.D.: 1007020056 v. ) ) JOHN NURSE a/k/a ) TWYAAN JOHNSON ) Defendant.

Submitted: June 19, 2025 Decided: July 24, 2025

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

DENIED

This 24th 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 John Nurse (“Nurse”), it appears to the Court that:

1. On September 21, 2012, Nurse was found guilty and convicted of Murder First

Degree, two counts of Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a

Felony (“PFDCF”), Robbery First Degree, Possession of a Deadly Weapon by a

Person Prohibited (“PDWBPP”), and Conspiracy Second Degree.2

1 Docket Item (“D.I.”) 138. 2 D.I. 79, 83. 2. Nurse was subsequently sentenced on March 21, 2012. He was sentenced as a

habitual offender under 11 Del. C. §4214(b) for his Robbery First Degree

conviction.3 The Sentencing Judge ordered the following: two life sentences for

Murder First Degree and Robbery First Degree, ten (10) years at Level V for each

PFDCF conviction, ten (10) years at Level V for PDWBPP, and two (2) years at

Level V for Conspiracy Second.4 Nurse was also sentenced with probation time.5

3. In the instant Motion, Nurse 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 A sentence is illegal and should be

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.”7 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.8

3 See Sentence Order, D.I. 100. 4 Id. 5 Id. 6 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(a). 7 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)). 8 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(a). 4. Nurse makes several arguments in his Motion. First, he argues his status as a

habitual offender violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment

because his prior convictions were “more than ten (10) years apart” and “no

longer qualify as ‘violent.’”9 Then, he argues, under Erlinger and its

predecessors,10 that the Sentencing Judge violated his Sixth Amendment rights

by unilaterally making a factual determination increasing his sentence beyond the

statutory maximum.11 Finally, Nurse asserts the Sentencing Judge did not follow

the holding of this Court in State v. Melendez.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.

6. Erlinger holds “[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.”13

Murder in the First Degree has a minimum mandatory sentence of life

9 D.I. 138. 10 Id. (citing Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024); Wooden v. United States, 595 U.S. 360 (2022); Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. 83 (2020); United States v. Haymond, 588 U.S. 634 (2019); Mathis v. United States, 579 U.S. 500 (2016); Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013); Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005); Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004); Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). 11 D.I. 138. 12 2024 WL 1005567 (Del. Super. Mar. 7, 2024). 13 State v. Roy, 2025 WL 1411659, at *2 (Del. Super. May 14, 2025)(quoting Erlinger, 602 U.S. at 833). imprisonment.14 Therefore, the Sentencing Judge did no more than follow this

statutory requirement when imposing a life sentence on Nurse for his Murder

First Degree count. The Sentencing Judge did not make a factual determination

increasing Nurse’s minimum or maximum sentence.

7. To the extent Nurse asserts the Sentencing Judge enhanced his other charges, the

claim is not ripe considering Nurse’s life sentence for Murder First Degree. The

Court is not necessarily making a finding of illegality, but, if there is an illegality,

it is not ripe for consideration.15

8. As to Nurse’s other arguments, the Sentencing Judge lawfully enforced the

habitual offender statute under 11 Del. C. § 4214(b).16 Additionally, the holding

of State v. Melendez is not relevant to the instant Motion because the Court made

rulings under statutes and circumstances inapplicable here.17

9. For the above reasons, Nurse’s Motion is DENIED.

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 John Nurse a/k/a Tywaan Johnson, JTVCC, SBI No. 00319299

14 11 Del. C. §4209. 15 State v. Hearne, 2023 WL 2980324 (Del. Super. Apr. 17, 2023); Govan v. State, 2010 WL 37007416, at *1 (Del. Super. Aug. 31, 2010) (Comm’s Order); State v. Twyman, 2010 WL 4261921 (Del. Super. Oct. 19, 2010); Goven v. State, 832 A.2d 1251 (Table) (Del. 2003). 16 11 Del. C. § 4214(b). 17 2024 WL 1005567, at *2-3 (modifying one count of defendant’s sentence because the indictment did not give requisite notice but denying defendant’s argument to modify the rest of the charges under 11 Del. C. § 4215(a)).