291 A.3d 652
Del.2023Background:
- Kleon Puller was convicted after a jury trial of attempted first‑degree murder, possession of a firearm during a felony, and endangering a child; he admitted shooting his girlfriend but claimed it was accidental.
- The Superior Court sentenced Puller to life imprisonment (plus other terms); prior appeals and a Rule 61 postconviction challenge were previously denied and affirmed.
- In 2022 Puller filed a Rule 35(a) motion arguing his life sentence was illegal because it was imposed under 11 Del. C. § 4209 (first‑degree murder) rather than § 4205 (felonies other than first‑degree murder), and § 4205 prescribes a 15 years–to‑life range.
- The sentencing transcript shows the court and counsel treated attempted first‑degree murder as subject to § 4205 (counsel acknowledged a 15‑year minimum); the judge expressly found aggravators and pronounced life imprisonment.
- The written sentencing order, however, mistakenly referenced § 4209 and imposed custody Level 5 without parole, creating a clerical inconsistency with the oral pronouncement.
- The Superior Court denied Puller’s motion; this Court affirmed that the sentence is not illegal but remanded for correction of the clerical error in the written order.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a life sentence for attempted first‑degree murder is illegal because it was imposed under § 4209 instead of § 4205 | Puller: sentence illegal because § 4209 applies only to murder; attempted murder is governed by § 4205 (15 years–to‑life) | State: oral sentencing applied § 4205; life is within § 4205 range and therefore lawful | Court: Affirmed — sentence not illegal; record shows court sentenced under § 4205 and life is authorized |
| Whether the written sentencing order’s reference to § 4209 and parole prohibition requires relief | Puller: written order’s language renders sentence inconsistent/illegal and needs correction | State: oral pronouncement controls; written order contains clerical error that may be corrected | Court: Affirmed denial of Rule 35(a) but remanded to Superior Court to correct clerical error in written order |
Key Cases Cited
- Unitrin, Inc. v. American General Corp., 651 A.2d 1361 (Del. 1995) (appellate court may affirm on alternative grounds not relied on by trial court)
- Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577 (Del. 1998) (definition of what constitutes an illegal sentence)
- Guyer v. State, 453 A.2d 462 (Del. 1982) (Delaware recognizes correction of clerical errors and oversights in criminal judgments)
- United States v. Chasmer, 952 F.2d 50 (3d Cir. 1991) (where oral pronouncement and written judgment conflict, the orally pronounced sentence controls)