State v. Wallace

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE ) ) v. ) ) I.D. No. 1107001573 ) GABRIEL WALLACE, ) ) Defendant. )

Submitted: September 5, 2025 Decided: October 30, 2025

Upon Defendant’s Motion for Correction of Illegal Sentence DENIED.

Upon Defendant’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel MOOT.

ORDER

Gabriel Wallace, pro se, Smyrna, DE.

Andrew J. Vella, Chief of Appeals, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 820 N. French St., Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for the State of Delaware.

WHARTON, J. This 30th day of October, 2025, upon consideration of Defendant Gabriel

Wallace’s (“Wallace”) Motions for Correction of Illegal Sentence, 1 and for

Appointment of Counsel,2 and the record in this matter, it appears to the Court that:

1. Wallace pled guilty on January 23, 2011 to Possession of a Firearm

During the Commission of a Felony.3 On April 20, 2011, this Court declared him an

habitual offender pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 4214(a) and sentenced him to 25 years of

incarceration.4 Wallace did not appeal, but, instead filed unsuccessful motions in this

Court. The first was a Motion for Modification of Sentence. 5 Next was a Motion for

Postconviction Relief and Appointment of Counsel.6 That latter motion was

withdrawn.7 These motions followed.

2. Wallace now moves for correction of an illegal sentence. In this motion,

Wallace challenges the Court’s determination of his eligibility to be sentenced as a

habitual offender.8 Citing Erlinger v. United States,9 he argues that his sentence “was

1 D.I. 55. 2 D.I. 56. 3 D.I. 26. 4 D.I. 31 5 D.I. 33. 6 D.I. 35, 46. 7 D.I. 51. 8 D.I. 55. 9 602 U.S. 821 (2024) (quoting Alleyne v United States, 570 U.S. 99, 111-113 (2013)). 2 enhanced based on prior convictions that were not proven to a jury beyond a

reasonable doubt.”10

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

sentence at any time. 11 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. 12 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. 13

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 determine Erlinger’s

applicability to Delaware’s habitual offender sentencing statute. The Court need

only consult the plea agreement signed by Wallace to determine he is not entitled to

relief. The plea agreement reads:

The defendant agrees that he has the following separate and distinct convictions: (1) Burglary 2nd in 2004; (2) Burglary 2nd in 2002; (3) Burglary 3rd in 2009; (4) Theft in 1996. The defendant does acknowledge and stipulate that

14 D.I. 55. 11 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(a). 12 Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998). 13 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(a) and (b). 3 he was previously declared an habitual offender in ID# 0808013274 and sentenced as same on Jan 12, 2009.14

5. Wallace admitted his status as an habitual offender in the plea

agreement. Just as Wallace waived his right to have a jury determine his guilt

beyond a reasonable doubt when he entered his guilty plea, so too did he waive his

right to have a jury determine his status as a habitual offender.

Therefore, Defendant Gabriel Wallace’s Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence

DENIED. His request for appointment of counsel is MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

14 D.I. 26. 4