Opinion
No. 532, 2001
Submitted: January 11, 2002
Decided: March 22, 2002
Court Below-Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County Cr.A. No. IN94-08-1484 and 1485.
Affirmed.
Unpublished Opinion is below.
KEVIN S. EPPERSON, Defendant Below-Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below-Appellee. No. 532, 2001 In the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. Submitted: January 11, 2002 Decided: March 22, 2002
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, BERGER, and STEELE, Justices.
MYRON T. STEELE, Justice.
ORDER
This 22nd day of March 2002, upon consideration of the parties' briefs and the record below, it appears to the Court that:
(1) The defendant-appellant, Kevin Epperson, filed this appeal from the Superior Court's denial of his motion for correction of an illegal sentence under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a). The Superior Court held that Epperson's assertion that he had received three sentences for only two criminal offenses was incorrect as a matter of fact. Moreover, the Superior Court held that Epperson's attempt to attack his underlying convictions was inappropriate under Rule 35(a).
We find no error in the Superior Court's ruling. Accordingly, we affirm.
(2) The record reflects that Epperson was convicted by a Superior Court jury in 1996 of first degree kidnapping and second degree unlawful sexual contact.
The Superior Court sentenced Epperson as an habitual offender to 52 years imprisonment followed by 8 years probation. This Court affirmed Epperson's convictions and sentences on direct appeal. Since then, Epperson has filed several unsuccessful petitions for state postconviction relief and federal habeas corpus relief.
Epperson v. State, Del. Supr., No. 214, 1996, Walsh, J. (Feb. 6, 1997).
(3) In his latest motion for correction of sentence under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a), Epperson appears to have asserted that the Superior Court illegally imposed separate sentences on him for his two underlying convictions and for his status as an habitual offender. Epperson's other disjointed arguments raising double jeopardy and jurisdictional claims appear to be related to his claim that his habitual offender sentence was allegedly improper.
(4) There is no merit to any of Epperson's claims. The record reflects that the Superior Court declared Epperson to be an habitual offender based on Epperson's prior felony convictions. The Superior Court sentenced Epperson as an habitual offender on the second degree unlawful sexual contact charge to 40 years imprisonment. The Superior Court also sentenced Epperson on the kidnapping charge to 20 years imprisonment, suspended after 12 years for 8 years of work release and probation. Epperson's contention that he received three separate sentences is simply wrong. Moreover, Epperson's contentions that his habitual offender sentence improperly punished him twice for the same conduct in violation of double jeopardy principles is without merit. The United States Supreme Court has consistently rejected double jeopardy challenges, like Epperson's, to sentencing schemes that enhance a defendant's sentence because of a prior conviction. Epperson's remaining claims appear to challenge his underlying convictions and, as the Superior Court properly found, are not appropriate in a motion for correction of sentence under Rule 35(a).
Witte v. United States, 515 U.S. 389, 398 (1995).
Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (1997).
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.