State v. Waples

• Court: Superior Court of Delaware
• Decided: February 17, 2025
• Docket: 1812013426A/B
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE, ) ) v. ) I.D. No. 1812013426A&B ) JAVAGHN D. WAPLES ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER

Submitted: December 20, 2024 Decided: February17, 2025

Upon Consideration of Defendant’s Motion to Correct an Illegal Sentence, DENIED.

Haley King, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, Georgetown, Delaware, Attorneys for the State of Delaware.

Javaghn Waples, Pro Se.

CONNER, J. This 17th day of February, 2025, upon consideration of Defendant Javaghn D.

Waples’s Motion for Correction of an Illegal Sentence, subsequently clarified upon

request in a filing titled “Motion to Amend,” and the State’s response, it appears to

the Court that:

(1) On December 25, 2018, Waples shot his girlfriend. On the same day

he was arrested and charged with Attempted Murder First Degree, Possession of a

Firearm By a Person Prohibited (PFBPP), Reckless Endangering First Degree, and

other related charges. The case was severed into two cases, 1812003426B for

PFBPP and 1812003426A for the remaining charges.

(2) On January 28, 2020, Waples was found guilty by a jury on the charge

of PFBPP. On August 27, 2021, Waples plead guilty to Reckless Endangering First

Degree and all remaining charges were nolle prossed.

(3) On November 12, 2021, Waples was declared an habitual offender

pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 4212(b) and was sentenced on both of the severed cases to

serve a total of nine years of Level V incarceration followed by decreasing levels of

supervised custody. Only the Possession of a Firearm By a Person Prohibited

sentence was enhanced pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 4212(b).

(4) On November 19, 2021, Waples filed an amended notice of appeal on

grounds that the State violated his constitutional rights under Batson v. Kentucky by

striking the only black jury member allegedly because of her race. Although this appeal was filed prematurely,1 it eventually resulted in a hearing where the Delaware

Superior Court found, and the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed, that no Batson

violation had occurred.2

(5) On October 7, 2024, Waples filed this Motion for Correction of an

Illegal Sentence. On October 14, 2024, the Court rejected the motion for lack of

specificity and asked Waples to clarify which prior felony he was challenging. On

October 28, 2024, Waples filed a “Motion to Amend.” The State filed its response

on December 20, 2024.

(6) In the motion, Waples challenges this Court’s finding that he is an

habitual offender pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 4212(b). Specifically, Waples argues that

the enactment of the Ned Carpenter Act, 78 Del. Laws ch. 13, eliminated the offense

of Maintaining a Vehicle For Keeping a Controlled Substance, and thus it was not a

felony as defined by 11 Del. C. § 4201(c) at the time of his sentencing.3 Waples also

discusses how many years ago each of these felonies were and that one of the

offenses was nonviolent.

(7) 11 Del. C. § 4212(b) provides that a person who has been three times

convicted of a felony under the laws of this State and who is thereafter convicted of

1 Waples v. State, 245 A.3d 516 (Table) (Del. 2021). 2 Waples v. State, 297 A.3d 287 (Table) at *3 (Del. 2023). 3 See 78 Del. Laws ch. 13 § 46(v) (striking 11 Del. C. § 4755(a)(5), which included Maintaining a Vehicle, in its entirety). a subsequent Title 11 violent felony shall receive a minimum sentence of half the

statutory maximum penalty provided elsewhere in Title 11.4

(8) 11 Del. C. § 211(a) sets forth that the repeal of any statute defining a

criminal offense shall not have the effect of releasing or extinguishing any penalty,

forfeiture or liability unless the repealing act expressly provides same.5 If not, the

statute “shall be treated as remaining in full force and effect.”6

(9) The Ned Carpenter Act expressly states that “[p]rosecution for any

violation of law occurring prior to the effective date of any amendment to this

Chapter is not affected or abated by any amendment to this Chapter.”7 Relying upon

this language, courts have routinely rejected attempts to overcome a declaration of

habitual offender under 11 Del. C. § 4214 that rely on the Ned Carpenter Act.8 The

Delaware Supreme Court in Garnett v. State considered Garnett’s challenge to his

sentencing for a PFBPP charge by saying that the Ned Carpenter Act made his

predicate offense of Maintaining a Vehicle For Keeping a Controlled Substance no

longer a felony, and thus he was not a habitual offender.9 Following the holding in

Ayala v. State, the Delaware Supreme Court rejected Garnett’s argument, finding

4 See 11 Del. C. § 4212(b). 5 11 Del. C. § 211(a). 6 Id. 7 See 78 Del. Laws ch. 13 § 66. 8 See e.g., Ayala v. State, 204 A.3d 829, 838–39 (Del. 2019); Garnett v. State, 277 A.3d 937 (Table) at *2–3 (Del. 2022); Teel v. State, 304 A.3d 567 (Table) at *2 (Del. 2022). 9 Garnett v. State, 277 A.3d 937 (Table) at *3 & n.13 (Del. 2022). “[Garnett] had been convicted of felonies on three separate occasions before the

offense at issue in this case. Thus, he was subject to sentencing under the version of

Section 4214(a) that was in effect at the time of his crime that is subject of this

appeal.”10

(10) This case is identical to Garnett. Waples does not argue that he had

been convicted of three prior felonies. Waples cannot rely on the Ned Carpenter Act

to argue Maintaining a Vehicle For Keeping a Controlled Substance was not a

predicate felony at the time of his sentencing on November 12, 2021.

(11) Waples’ remaining arguments, highlighting the number of years that

had passed since his prior convictions and arguing Maintaining a Vehicle For

Keeping a Controlled Substance was a nonviolent felony, do not hold any merit.

There is no time-limits set for offenses to count under 11 Del. C. § 4214(b).

Furthermore, it does not matter whether the three predicate felonies were violent or

non-violent in determining a habitual offender under 11 Del. C. § 4214(b).

For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion for

Correction of an Illegal Sentence.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Mark H. Conner Mark H. Conner, Judge

10 Id. at *3 xc: Prothonotary