Trice v. State, 363, 2016

In 2011 Trice pled no contest to third-degree rape (lesser-included), strangulation, and witness tampering and was sentenced to concurrent terms including a 25-year Level V term for rape, suspended after eight years upon successful completion of a Family Problems Program.
The plea agreement and sentencing order included completion of the Family Problems Program as a condition despite Trice’s no contest plea.
Trice’s direct appeal and two Rule 61 postconviction motions were previously unsuccessful.
In June 2016 Trice filed a Superior Court Rule 35(a) motion to correct sentence, arguing his plea was not knowing and voluntary because he was not told the program required admitting guilt, and that the sentencing condition breached his plea.
The Superior Court denied the Rule 35(a) motion, finding Trice was informed a no contest plea is treated as a guilty plea and that the plea agreement included the program condition; Trice appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 35(a) permits relief for alleged failure to inform Trice that program completion requires admitting guilt	Trice: plea was not knowing/voluntary because he wasn’t told program requires admission of guilt; condition breached plea	State: Rule 35(a) is limited to correcting illegal sentences; this is a pre-sentencing/plea error	Denied — claim falls outside Rule 35(a)’s narrow scope (pre-sentencing error)
Whether sentencing term is internally contradictory or ambiguous because program requires admission though plea was no contest	Trice: program condition conflicts with no contest plea or makes Level V time ambiguous	State: sentencing condition authorized and not ambiguous; prior precedent rejects conflict argument	Not considered on Rule 35; appellate court refuses to consider newly raised claims and notes prior cases rejecting them
Whether appellate court should consider arguments raised for first time on appeal	Trice: raised additional illegality arguments on appeal	State: jurisdictional/procedural bars to considering new arguments	Court will not consider new claims raised first on appeal under its rules

Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577 (Del. 1998) (describing Rule 35(a) as intended to correct illegal sentences, not pre-sentencing errors)
Betts v. State, 983 A.2d 75 (Del. 2009) (rejecting claim that treatment-program requirement conflicted with no contest plea in probation context)
Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424 (1962) (framework for knowing and voluntary plea inquiry)