holding Rule 35 motion was not appropriate vehicle for defendant arguing that sentence was illegal because underlying conviction was not supported by evidence
Summary of this case from Reed v. State88, 2006.
December 11, 2006.
Appeal from Superior Cr 9512007450.
Decisions without Published Opinions Affirmed.
holding Rule 35 motion was not appropriate vehicle for defendant arguing that sentence was illegal because underlying conviction was not supported by evidence
Summary of this case from Reed v. StateFull title:Nichols v. State
Court:Supreme Court of Delaware
Date published: Dec 11, 2006
Nichols v. State, 913 A.2d 570 (Del. 2006).…
State v. CookIn essence, Defendant's motion is not one challenging an illegal sentence under Superior Court Criminal Rule…