Wheeler v. State

• Court: Supreme Court of Delaware
• Decided: November 25, 2025
• Docket: 330, 2025
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STEPHEN WHEELER, § § Defendant Below, § No. 330, 2025 Appellant, § § Court Below—Superior Court v. § of the State of Delaware § STATE OF DELAWARE, § Cr. ID No. 1610013171 (S) § Appellee. §

Submitted: October 2, 2025 Decided: November 25, 2025

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and GRIFFITHS, Justices.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the appellee’s motion to

affirm, and the record below, it appears to the Court that:

(1) The appellant, Stephen Wheeler, filed this appeal from a Superior Court

order denying his motion for correction of illegal sentence. The State of Delaware

has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment on the grounds that it is manifest

on the face of Wheeler’s opening brief that the appeal is without merit. We agree

and affirm.

(2) Following a bench trial, Wheeler was convicted of home invasion, first-

degree robbery, second-degree assault, and second-degree conspiracy. The crimes

occurred in October 2018 when the victim was sixty-four years old. The Superior Court sentenced Wheeler as follows: (i) for home invasion, twenty-five years of

Level V incarceration, suspended after the seven-year minimum mandatory in effect

at the time of the crime for eight years of Level III probation;1 (ii) for first degree

robbery, twenty-five years of Level V incarceration, suspended after the three-year-

minimum mandatory for eight years of Level III probation;2 (iii) for second-degree

assault, eight years of Level V incarceration, suspended after three years for eight

years of Level III probation;3 and (iv) for second-degree conspiracy, two years of

Level V incarceration, suspended for one year of Level III probation.4 This Court

affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment on direct appeal.5 This Court also affirmed

1 11 Del. C. § 826A(b)(2)(a) (2018) (providing that home invasion was a class B felony with a minimum seven-year Level V sentence if the victim was sixty-two or older); 11 Del. C. § 4205(b)(2) (2018) (providing that the sentencing range for a class B felony was two to twenty-five years of Level V incarceration). 2 11 Del. C. § 832(b)(1) (2018) (providing that first-degree robbery was a class B felony with a minimum sentence of three years of Level V incarceration); 11 Del. C. § 4205(b)(2) (2018) (providing that the sentencing range for a class B felony was two to twenty-five years of Level V incarceration). 3 11 Del. C. § 612 (2018) (providing that second-degree assault was a class D felony); 11 Del. C. 4205(b)(4) (2018) (providing that the sentencing range for a class D felony was up to eight years of Level V incarceration). The Superior Court originally sentenced Wheeler to fifteen years of Level V incarceration for second-degree assault, exceeding the statutory maximum for a class D felony, but subsequently reduced that time to eight years of Level V incarceration. 4 11 Del. C. § 512 (2018) (providing that second-degree conspiracy was a class G felony); 11 Del. C. 4205(b)(7) (2018) (providing that the sentencing range for a class G felony was up to two years of Level V incarceration). 5 Wheeler v. State, 209 A.3d 24, 2019 WL 1579600 (Del. Apr. 11, 2019) (TABLE).

2 the Superior Court’s denial of Wheeler’s first motion for postconviction relief under

Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.6

(3) In March 2025, Wheeler filed a motion for correction of illegal

sentence. He argued that his sentences were illegal because the sentencing judge

made factual findings instead of a jury as required by Erlinger v. United States7 and

similar cases. The Superior Court denied the motion, finding that Wheeler’s

sentences did not implicate Erlinger or similar cases. This appeal followed.

(4) We review the denial of a motion for correction of illegal sentence for

abuse of discretion.8 To the extent a claim involves a question of law, we review the

claim de novo.9 A sentence is illegal if it exceeds statutory 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 its substance, or is a sentence that the judgment of

conviction did not authorize.10

6 Wheeler v. State, 296 A.3d 363 (Del. Jan. 18, 2023). 7 602 U.S. 821 (2024). 8 Fountain v. State, 100 A.3d 1021, 2014 WL 4102069, at *1 (Del. Aug. 19, 2014) (TABLE). 9 Id. 10 Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998).

3 (5) In his opening brief, Wheeler argues that his sentences are illegal

because the sentencing judge made factual findings about his criminal history

instead of a jury as required by Erlinger. This argument is without merit. In

Erlinger, the United State Supreme Court held that a unanimous jury must determine

beyond a reasonable doubt whether a defendant’s prior offenses were committed on

separate occasions before his sentence can be enhanced under the Armed Career

Criminal Act.11

(6) Erlinger is inapplicable here because the sentencing judge made no

factual findings concerning Wheeler’s criminal history that exposed him to higher

minimum or maximum sentences.12 Wheeler’s sentences fall within the statutory

ranges.13 The sentencing judge’s consideration of aggravating factors such as

excessive cruelty and vulnerability of the victim to impose sentences in excess of

the Sentencing and Accountability Commission guidelines did not make those

sentences illegal.14 The Superior Court did not err in denying Wheeler’s motion for

correction of illegal sentence.

11 Erlinger, 602 U.S. at 834. 12 See, e.g., Smith v. State, 2025 WL 2048977, at *1 (Del. July 21, 2025) (holding Erlinger was inapplicable to sentence that was not enhanced on the basis of the appellant’s prior criminal conduct); Phillips v. State, 342 A.3d 323, 2025 WL 1693652, at *2 (Del. June 16, 2025) (same). 13 See supra nn. 1-4. 14 See, e.g., Krafchick v. State, 2025 WL 2925378, at *1 (Del. Oct. 14, 2025) (holding that Superior Court’s use of aggravating factors to impose maximum statutory sentence did not make sentence 4 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is

GRANTED, and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. Chief Justice

illegal under Erlinger); White v. State, 243 A.3d 381, 410 (Del. 2020) (describing the “voluntary and non-binding” nature of the sentencing guidelines); Benge v. State, 945 A.2d 1099, 1102 (Del. 2008) (referring to the “voluntary and nonbinding character” of the sentencing guidelines).