holding that a challenge to the timing of the habitual offender status hearing was, in fact, a motion for correction of sentence imposed in an illegal manner that was required to be filed within 90 days of sentencing
Summary of this case from Hicks v. StateNo. 360, 2006.
January 11, 2007.
Appeal from the Superior Cr 30100217DI.
Decisions Without Published Opinions Affirmed.
holding that a challenge to the timing of the habitual offender status hearing was, in fact, a motion for correction of sentence imposed in an illegal manner that was required to be filed within 90 days of sentencing
Summary of this case from Hicks v. Statenoting that the defendant's claim that the Superior Court had not conducted a separate hearing to determine whether he was eligible to be sentenced as a habitual offender was a claim that the court had imposed a sentence in an illegal manner and was required to be raised within 90 days of the defendant's sentencing
Summary of this case from Merritt v. StateFull title:Walley v. State
Court:Supreme Court of Delaware
Date published: Jan 11, 2007
And just as it does with any other type of Rule 35 application, when considering a motion for sentence…
State v. WalleyThey were carefully and fully considered in the Commissioner's Report and Recommendation, Mr. Walley's direct…