Coleman v. State, 70, 2017

Devin L. Coleman pled guilty on June 17, 2014 to five charges from two indictments; plea agreed he was eligible for habitual-offender sentencing under 11 Del. C. § 4214(a).
Before sentencing Coleman admitted prior felony convictions; Superior Court declared him a habitual offender and imposed, inter alia, an 8-year Level V sentence for Possession of a Firearm by a Person Prohibited (PFBPP).
Coleman filed multiple postconviction and Rule 35 motions challenging the habitual-offender procedure (arguing the State failed to move to have him declared a habitual offender and no separate habitual-offender hearing was held); many prior appeals and motions were dismissed or voluntarily withdrawn.
On August 3, 2016 Coleman filed a Rule 35 motion; after supplemental filings and a November 1, 2016 hearing, the Superior Court denied the motion on February 7, 2017 as time‑barred, repetitive, and lacking extraordinary circumstances; Coleman appealed.
The State moved to affirm; Coleman asked to remand for the Superior Court to consider a new Rule 35(a) motion, but the Court denied remand and granted the State’s motion to affirm, warning Coleman against further repetitive untimely filings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Superior Court erred by denying Coleman’s Rule 35 challenge to habitual‑offender sentencing procedure	Coleman: State failed to file a motion declaring him a habitual offender and no separate habitual‑offender hearing was held, so sentence was imposed in an illegal manner	State: Coleman’s Rule 35(b) motion was untimely, repetitive, no extraordinary circumstances exist, and Coleman admitted the predicate convictions	Court: Affirmed—motion was untimely and repetitive; no extraordinary circumstances; denial was not an abuse of discretion
Whether remand to consider a new Rule 35(a) motion was warranted while appeal pending	Coleman: asked remand to allow Superior Court to rule on a March 11, 2017 Rule 35(a) motion	State: opposed remand; Superior Court had deferred that motion until resolution of this appeal	Court: Denied remand
Whether Coleman’s filings justified injunctive or monetary sanctions	Coleman: continued filings seeking relief	State: sought dismissal and enforcement of procedural rules	Court: Warned Coleman he may be enjoined from filing future appeals without leave and reminded him of Rule 61(j) cost provisions

None (the opinion relies on unpublished or Westlaw citations and procedural rules rather than officially reported Delaware opinions)