State v. Richards

• Court: Superior Court of Delaware
• Decided: May 27, 2025
• Docket: 2212011066; 2205008758
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE ) ) v. ) I.D. Nos. 2212011066 ) 2205008758 MARKEL RICHARDS, ) ) Defendant. )

Submitted: May 21, 2025 Decided: May 27, 2025

ORDER

This 27th day of May, 2025, upon consideration of Defendant Markel

Richards’ (“Richards”) Motion to Vacate Unconstitutional Sentence,1 and the record

in this matter, it appears to the Court that:

1. Richards pled May 1, 2023 to Illegal Gang Participation, Manslaughter,

three counts of Conspiracy Second Degree, two counts of Theft of a Motor Vehicle,

two counts of Assault First Degree, Attempted Assault First Degree, and Possession

of a Firearm During the commission of a Felony. 2 As result of his plea, he faced a

minimum mandatory sentence of 11 years at Level V and a maximum sentence of 138

years. 3 In the plea agreement, the State agreed to recommend no more than 18 years

1 D.I. 18 (ID No. 2212011066); D.I. 17 (ID No. 2205008758). Subsequent references are to ID No. 2212011066. 2 D.I. 14. 3 Id. of unsuspended Level V time.4 The Court sentenced him to 64 years at Level V,

suspended after 21 years, for decreasing levels of supervision. 5

2. Richards moves for correction of an illegal sentence. In this motion, he

claims his sentence was illegally enhanced from an 11 year minimum mandatory

sentence in violation of his 5th and 6th Amendment, and due process rights under

Erlinger v. United States 6 and its predecessors.7

3. Pursuant to Criminal Rule 35(a), the Court may correct an illegal

sentence at any time. 8 A sentence is illegal if it violates double jeopardy, 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 that the judgment of conviction

did not authorize.9 The Court may correct a sentence imposed in an illegal manner

within the time provided for the reduction of sentence which is 90 days of the

imposition of sentence. 10

4. Here, the Court need not determine whether the motion more properly is

one to correct an illegal sentence, and thus cognizable, or a time barred motion to

correct a sentence illegally imposed. Nor, need the Court consider whether Erlinger

4 Id. 5 D.I. 17. 6 602 U.S. 821 (2024). 7 D.I. 32. 8 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(a). 9 Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998). 10 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(a) and (b). 2 may be retroactively applied to his case. The Court need only consult the Plea

Agreement and the Sentence Order to determine Richards is not entitled to relief under

either interpretation of the motion.

5. Erlinger provides that ‘“[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.”’11

In Richards’ case, the Court made no factual determinations that exposed him to a

higher maximum or minimum sentence. It simply sentenced him within the statutory

range. Erlinger and similar cases are not implicated.

Therefore, Defendant Markel Richards’ Motion to Vacate Unconstitutional

Sentence is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Ferris W. Wharton Ferris W. Wharton, J.

oc: Prothonotary Joseph Grubb, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General Erika Flaschner, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General Jillian Bender, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General Markel Richards (SBI #00798313) ISO

11 Erlinger 602 U.S. at 833 (quoting Alleyne v United States, 570 U.S. 99, 111-113) 3