213 A.3d 556
Del.2019Background
- Defendant Jerry Longford-Myers was resentenced on February 6, 2018 after probation violations in multiple cases, receiving separate sentences for a 2011 maintaining-a-dwelling conviction and two 2012 convictions (PFDCF and drug dealing).
- Longford-Myers moved under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35 to correct an illegal portion of the resentencing, asserting the 2011 maintaining sentence was illegal because he had already served the prison time for that conviction.
- The State agreed the 2011 maintaining resentencing was illegal and also argued the original 2012 PFDCF sentence was illegal (because PFDCF sentences may not be suspended), though it did not assert the 2012 drug-dealing resentencing was illegal.
- Without giving Longford-Myers an opportunity to respond to the State’s additional requests, the Superior Court granted the Rule 35 motion and modified multiple sentencing components, including increasing the drug-dealing sentence.
- Longford-Myers appealed, arguing the court exceeded its Rule 35(a) authority by modifying legal sentences in the multi-count order; the State argued that once one sentence in a multi-count order is illegal, the court may revisit other sentences in that order.
Issues
| Issue | Longford-Myers' Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 35(a) authorizes modification of legal sentences in a multi-count sentencing order when another sentence in the order is illegal | Rule 35(a) permits correction only of illegal sentences; legal sentences are outside its scope | If one sentence is illegal, the court may modify other sentences in the same order to effectuate an overall lawful disposition | Court held Rule 35(a) does not authorize modifying lawful sentences; Superior Court abused its discretion by increasing the legal drug-dealing sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Henry, 709 F.2d 298 (5th Cir. 1983) (court may not increase legal portion after vacating illegal portion)
- United States v. Bentley, 850 F.2d 327 (7th Cir. 1988) (when illegal sentences foil original plan, court may reimpose aggregate punishment no greater than original)
- United States v. Pridegeon, 153 U.S. 48 (1894) (valid portion of sentence should stand when excess is separable)
- Manrique v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1266 (2017) (discussing statutory appeal limits for sentence review)