Flonnory v. State
216, 2017
Del.Aug 23, 2017Background
- Appellant Freddy L. Flonnory was convicted of two 1997 murders (committed at age 18), retried after a 2001 remand, and in 2004 received mandatory non-parolable life sentences for first‑degree murder.
- His convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal in 2006; multiple postconviction Rule 61 motions were later denied.
- On April 28, 2017 Flonnory filed a Superior Court motion under Criminal Rule 35(a) styled as a "correction of sentence," arguing his mandatory life terms should be reconsidered in light of Eighth Amendment principles applied to juvenile homicide offenders.
- The Superior Court denied the motion on May 16, 2017, treating it as a Rule 35(b) motion for reduction of sentence (thus time‑barred) and holding the life sentences could not be reduced or modified.
- Flonnory appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion by treating his Rule 35(a) filing as a Rule 35(b) reduction motion and that his sentences were illegal/ambiguous under Rule 35(a).
- The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed, finding Flonnory failed to show his sentence was "illegal" under Rule 35(a) or that juvenile sentencing principles applied to an adult sentenced as an adult.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Superior Court should have treated the filing as a Rule 35(a) correction motion rather than a Rule 35(b) reduction motion | Flonnory: motion was filed under Rule 35(a) and may be filed at any time | State: court reasonably treated it as a 35(b) reduction and applied time limits | Court affirmed denial; no reversible error despite lack of explanation for treating as 35(b) |
| Whether mandatory life without parole imposed on crimes committed at age 18 is an "illegal sentence" under Rule 35(a) | Flonnory: sentences are ambiguous/contradictory/unauthorized in light of juvenile‑related Eighth Amendment analysis | State: juvenile‑leniency precedents do not apply to adults sentenced as adults | Court: Rule 35(a) relief limited to traditional definitions of illegal sentence; Flonnory did not show illegality |
| Whether Miller v. Alabama requires resentencing or relief for an offender who was 18 at offense | Flonnory: relies on Miller principles to seek relief | State: Miller addresses juveniles and does not apply to adults sentenced as adults | Court: Miller‑based juvenile standards do not apply to 18‑year‑old adult sentenced as an adult; no relief granted |
| Whether the Superior Court abused its discretion in denying the motion | Flonnory: denial was erroneous and discretionary review should favor correction | State: denial proper under rules and case law | Court: reviewed for abuse of discretion and found no reason to disturb denial; motion denied and judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Flonnory v. State, 778 A.2d 1044 (Del. 2001) (prior appeal reversing convictions and remanding for new trial)
- Flonnory v. State, 893 A.2d 507 (Del. 2006) (affirming convictions and life sentences on direct appeal)
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (Eighth Amendment prohibits mandatory life without parole for juvenile homicide offenders)
- Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577 (Del. 1998) (describing the narrow scope of Rule 35(a) relief for illegal sentences)
- Vickers v. State, 117 A.3d 516 (Del. 2015) (holding juvenile‑era sentencing leniency does not apply to adults sentenced as adults)
- Unitrin, Inc. v. American Gen. Corp., 651 A.2d 1361 (Del. 1995) (appellate court may affirm trial court judgment on grounds different from those articulated below)