Opinion
ID. No. 305002671D1.
Submitted: October 1, 1999.
Decided: December 17, 1999.
Upon Defendant Willis L. Grayson's Pro Se Motion for Correction of Illegal Sentence or Improper Consecutive Sentences. DENIED.
Sean P. Lugg, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for the State.
Willis L. Grayson, Jr., Delaware Correctional Center, Smyrna, Delaware, Pro Se Defendant.
ORDER
1. Willis L. Grayson, Jr., (Defendant) has filed this pro se Motion for Correction of Illegal Sentence or Improper Consecutive Sentences pursuant to Super Ct. Crim. R. 35. For the following reasons, Defendant's motion is DENIED.
This Court notes that on November 3, 1999, Defendant filed a motion to withdraw the Motion for Correction of Illegal Sentence or Improper Consecutive Sentences "without prejudice," in which motion Defendant indicates, after reviewing the State's response, that he would "resubmit his aforesaid motion at a later time." This Court will not allow that but will decide Defendant's motion on the merits.
2. On March 7, 1986 Defendant was sentenced to a period of imprisonment of thirty years for the offense of Rape in the Second Degree (1N85-01-0825) effective September 16, 1985, and was credited sixty (60) days times served. Defendant was sentenced to a period of imprisonment of thirty years for the offense of Rape in the Second Degree (1N85-03-1524) to be served "consecutive to 1N85-01-0825." On September 10, 1999, Defendant filed this Motion for Correction of illegal Sentence or Improper Consecutive Sentences.
3. Defendant contends that the Court's failure to specify a date upon which his sentence ends renders the sentence illegal or improper. Specifically, Defendant states in his motion that "the sentencing order is improper consecutive sentence imposede [sic] as a result of not being mathematically calculated out by court, which the department of corrections can not technically do until the sentence orde [sic] is calculated by the court."
Defendant's Motion Correction of an Illegal Sentence or Improper Consecutive Sentences at 2.
4. Section 11 Del. C. § 3901(a) of Title 11 of the Delaware Code provides that "[w]hen imprisonment is a part of the sentence, the term shall be fixed, and the time of its commencement and ending specified." Section 3901(d) states that "[n]o sentence of confinement of any criminal defendant by any court of this State shall be made to run concurrently with any other sentence of confinement imposed on such criminal defendant."
5. The Court in Frye v. State held that "[t]he quantum, expressed in years, months or days, of an imposed sentence controls, irrespective of the expiration and termination date of the sentence. . . ." The Frye Court then stated that "[i]t has been held that the statute requiring the specification of the commencement and ending of a sentence simply prescribes a rule of mathematical convenience as a matter of descriptive detail." In addition, the Frye Court stated that "[i]n the event of a conflict between the quantum of the sentence imposed and the date of termination, the former controls."
Del. Supr., 236 A.2d 424, 425 (1967).
Id.
Id.
6. The Supreme Court, in Faircloth v. State, affirmed the holding of Frye that "quantum of the sentence . . . is always controlling irrespective of the statement of an expiration date."
Del. Supr., 522 A.2d 1268, 1271 (1987) ( citing Frye, 236 A.2d at 425).
7. This Court finds that Defendant's sentence is unambiguous in its terms. He is to serve sixty years consecutively with a credit of sixty (60) days for time served. The Department of Correction can calculate Defendant's sentence accordingly. The sentence imposed by this Court is within the bounds of its authority and is in compliance with the provisions of 11 Del. C. § 3901.
See Sentencing Order.
8. For the above stated reasons, Defendant's Motion for Illegal Sentence or Improper Consecutive Sentence is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.