From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Floyd

Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County
Nov 10, 2009
ID No. 0212002535 (Del. Super. Ct. Nov. 10, 2009)

Opinion

ID No. 0212002535.

Submitted: November 4, 2009.

Decided: November 10, 2009.

Upon Defendant's "Petition for Correction of An Illegal Sentence [Under] Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(A)" — DENIED.



ORDER


1. On February 3, 2006, Defendant, having been convicted of attempted robbery first degree, two counts of possession of a deadly weapon during the commission of a felony, and assault first degree, was sentenced to a total of twenty years in prison, ten years of which are mandatory, followed by many years of probation.

2. In summary, for reasons that no longer matter, Defendant failed to file a timely direct appeal. Eventually, the Supreme Court remanded with instructions to resentence Defendant so as to re-start the appeal period. Accordingly, on September 13, 2006, the court reimposed the original sentence in ID # 0212002535.

Floyd v. State, 2006 WL 2466464 (Del. Supr. Aug. 23, 2006).

3. For Defendant's benefit, the court reiterates: The reimposed sentence is identical to the original sentence. The reimposed sentence does not "increase" the original sentence in any way.

4. Yet again, Defendant failed to file a direct appeal. Instead, on October 30, 2009, Defendant filed the above-captioned motion. Although Defendant invokes Superior Court Criminal Rule 35, his only allegation that arguably brings his motion under Rule 35 is his incorrect claim that his sentence was increased when the court reimposed it. Otherwise, Defendant's allegations involve ineffective assistance of counsel and misunderstandings surrounding pretrial plea negotiations.

5. The original sentence order, which merely was reimposed in September 2006, calls for substantially less than the statutory maximum for each crime. There is nothing illegal about it. Accordingly, Defendant's motion under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35 to correct an illegal sentence is DENIED.

6. To the extent the motion raises issues about things that have occurred before or during Defendant's trial and sentencing, those are matters that must be presented through a motion for postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

State v. Floyd

Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County
Nov 10, 2009
ID No. 0212002535 (Del. Super. Ct. Nov. 10, 2009)
Case details for

State v. Floyd

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF DELAWARE, v. JAMES M. FLOYD , Defendant

Court:Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County

Date published: Nov 10, 2009

Citations

ID No. 0212002535 (Del. Super. Ct. Nov. 10, 2009)