REESE v. STATE, 850 A.2d 303 (Del. 2004)

No. 571, 2003.Supreme Court of Delaware.Submitted: April 2, 2004.
Decided: May 25, 2004.

Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County Cr. A. No. IN01-03-0955.

Before HOLLAND, STEELE and JACOBS, Justices

ORDER
Myron T. Steele, Justice

This 25th day of May 2004, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal and the record below, it appears to the Court that:

(1) The defendant-appellant, Michael P. Reese, filed an appeal from the Superior Court’s November 12, 2003 order denying his motion for correction of sentence pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a). We find no merit to the appeal. Accordingly, we AFFIRM.

(2) In November 2002, Reese pleaded guilty to Assault in the First Degree. He was sentenced to 6 years incarceration at Level V, to be suspended after 4 years for probation.

(3) In March 2001, Reese permitted an acquaintance named Michael Gast to stay in the back room of his auto body shop. One evening, Gast and Reese had an argument concerning the proximity of a space heater to some flammable material. During the argument, Reese threw a bottle containing acid at Gast and struck him several times with a baseball bat, but then also helped him wash the acid out of his eye.[1]

(4) In this appeal, Reese claims that: a) the Presentence Report contained inaccurate information concerning his argument with Gast, which caused the Superior Court to impose a harsher sentence than it otherwise would have; b) he was not afforded an opportunity to rebut the inaccurate information; c) his attorney failed to present a rebuttal to the inaccurate information; and d) his sentencing hearing was unfair and in violation of his constitutional rights.

(5) Rule 35(a) permits the Superior Court to correct an illegal sentence “at any time.” The purpose of Rule 35(a) is to permit correction of an illegal sentence, not to re-examine errors occurring at the trial or other proceedings prior to the imposition of sentence.[2] A sentence is illegal when it exceeds the statutorily-authorized limits or violates double jeopardy.[3] A sentence also is illegal if it 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 not authorized by the judgment of conviction.[4]

(6) Reese does not claim that his sentence exceeds the statutorily-authorized limits or violates double jeopardy. Nor does he claim that his sentence is ambiguous or internally contradictory. All of Reese’s claims are directed to alleged errors occurring at the sentencing hearing prior to the imposition of sentence. As such, they are not properly raised in a motion to correct sentence pursuant to Rule 35(a).

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.