Summary
rejecting double jeopardy claim and holding that defendant could be sentenced for Aggravated Menacing and Unlawful Imprisonment First Degree, as well as "two related companion counts of PFDCF"
Summary of this case from Prince v. StateOpinion
No. 483, 2011
03-01-2012
CHRISTIAN DEJESUS, Defendant, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff, Appellee.
Court—Superior Court the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County
Cr. ID No. 0303004601
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices.
ORDER
This 1st day of March 2012, upon consideration of the appellant's opening brief and the motion to affirm filed by the appellee, State of Delaware, it appears to the Court that:
(1) On May 14, 2004, a Superior Court jury convicted the appellant, Christian DeJesus, of Burglary in the First Degree, Unlawful Imprisonment in the First Degree, three counts of Aggravated Menacing and four counts of Possession of a Firearm during the Commission of a Felony ("PFDCF"). DeJesus was sentenced to twelve years of incarceration followed by probation. Thereafter, on direct appeal, this Court affirmed the convictions and sentences and later affirmed the denial of DeJesus' motion for postconviction relief.
DeJesus v. State, 2005 WL 65865 (Del. Supr.).
DeJesus v. State, 2006 WL 1506205 (Del. Supr.).
(2) On June 14, 2011, DeJesus filed his third motion for correction of an illegal sentence under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a) ("Rule 35(a)"). In his Rule 35(a) motion, DeJesus claimed that he was improperly charged, convicted and sentenced on four counts of PFDCF (hereinafter "double jeopardy/multiplicity claim"). By order dated August 10, 2011, the Superior Court denied the Rule 35(a) motion. This appeal followed.
Among other things, the double jeopardy clause protects against being charged multiple times under the same statute. Nance v. State, 903 A.2d 283, 286 (Del. 2006); Spencer v. State, 868 A.2d 821, 822-23 (Del. 2005).
(3) First, the Court notes that DeJesus does not argue the double jeopardy/multiplicity claim that he raised in his Rule 35(a) motion. The claim, therefore, is waived. The claim is also without merit, however, for the reasons stated by the Superior Court in its order of August 10, 2011. Under Delaware law, it is not a violation of double jeopardy/multiplicity for the State to charge PFDCF for each felony that is allegedly committed with a firearm.
Murphy v. State, 632 A.2d 1150, 1152 (Del. 1993).
Nance v. State, 903 A.2d 283, 288 (Del. 2006); Spencer v. State, 868 A.2d 821, 824 (Del. 2005).
(4) DeJesus next raises two claims on appeal that he did not raise in his Rule 35(a) motion. We review those claims for plain error.
Del. Supr. Ct. R. 8.
(5) First, DeJesus claims that he was denied due process when the charge of Unlawful Imprisonment in the First Degree and the companion PFDCF charge were added to his indictment (hereinafter "defective indictment claim"). DeJesus' defective indictment claim does not warrant further consideration. Not only was the claim formerly adjudicated but also the claim is not properly brought under Rule 35(a).
See State v. DeJesus, 2005 WL 2360680, at *1 (Del. Super. Ct.), aff'd, 2006 WL 1506205 (Del. Supr.).
The "narrow function" of Rule 35(a) is to permit correction of an illegal sentence, not to examine alleged pretrial or trial errors occurring prior to the imposition of sentence. Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998).
(6) Second, DeJesus claims that the charges of Aggravated Menacing and Unlawful Imprisonment in the First Degree with respect to Marisol Ayala invoked the double jeopardy protection against multiple convictions for the same conduct (hereinafter "double jeopardy claim"). According to DeJesus, those charges should have "merge[d] to form a single offense."
Marisol Ayala was one of DeJesus' three victims.
Nance v. State, 903 A.2d 283, 286 (Del. 2006); Spencer v. State, 868 A.2d 821, 822-23 (Del. 2005).
(7) DeJesus' double jeopardy claim is without merit. There is sufficient evidence in the record to support the jury's separate verdicts of Aggravated Menacing and Unlawful Imprisonment in the First Degree. The separate sentences imposed for those crimes and on the related companion counts of PFDCF also were proper.
See State v. DeJesus, 2005 WL 2360680, at *1 (Del. Super. Ct.), aff'd, 2006 WL 1506205 (Del. Supr.). The Court notes that the Superior Court denied DeJesus' motion to acquit him of unlawful imprisonment. Trial tr. at 3-4 (May 13, 2004).
Nance v. State, 903 A.2d 283, 288 (Del. 2006); Spencer v. State, 868 A.2d 821, 824 (Del. 2005).
--------
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State's motion to affirm is GRANTED. The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
Henry duPont Ridgely
Justice