Price v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE BOBBY K. PRICE, JR., Defendant BelowAppellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff BelowAppellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 555, 2001 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County Cr.A. No. IN94-04-0237 Submitted: March 1, 2002 Decided: April 10, 2002 Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and HOLLAND, Justices ORDER This 10th day of April 2002, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal and the record below, it appears to the Court that: (1) The defendant-appellant, Bobby K. Price, Jr., filed an appeal from the Superior Court s October 22, 2001 order denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a). We find no merit to the appeal. Accordingly, we AFFIRM. (2) In May 1995, after rejecting the State s plea offer and proceeding to a jury trial, Price was convicted of Felony Theft. He was also acquitted of Third Degree Burglary and Criminal Mischief. In August 1995 Price was sentenced as an habitual offender1 to 35 years imprisonment. This Court affirmed Price s conviction and sentence on direct appeal.2 This Court also affirmed the Superior Court s denial of Price s subsequent motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.3 (3) In his appeal, Price claims that the Superior Court punished him for rejecting the State s plea offer and exercising his right to a trial by jury by sentencing him as an habitual offender. The plea offer required Price to plead guilty to Burglary in the Third Degree and admit to his status as an habitual offender in return for the State s dismissal of the charges of Felony Theft and Criminal Mischief. Price refused the plea offer on the ground that he was innocent of the burglary charge. In essence, Price claims that the Superior Court should not have sentenced him as an habitual offender on the theft conviction when the jury had acquitted him of the burglary charge, thereby justifying his claim of innocence and his rejection of the State s plea offer. 1 DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 4214(a). 2 Price v. State, Del. Supr., No. 367, 1995, Hartnett, J. (Aug. 19, 1996). 3 Price v. State, Del. Supr., No. 105, 2000, Steele, J. (Jan. 18, 2001). -2- (4) Rule 35(a) permits the Superior Court to correct an illegal sentence at any time. 4 The narrow function of Rule 35 is to permit correction of an illegal sentence, not to re-examine errors occurring at the trial or other proceedings prior to the imposition of sentence. 5 Relief under Rule 35(a) is available when the sentence imposed exceeds the statutorilyimposed limits, [or] violates the Double Jeopardy Clause . . . . 6 A sentence is also illegal if it is ambiguous with respect to the time and manner in which it is to be served, is internally contradictory, omits a term required to be imposed by statute, is uncertain as to the substance of the sentence, or is a sentence which the judgment of conviction did not authorize. 7 (5) Price does not assert that his sentence was outside the statutory authorization, constituted double jeopardy, or was ambiguous or contradictory. His sole claim is that his sentence as an habitual offender was punitive. Because that claim would require an examination of the proceedings 4 Tatem v. State, 787 A.2d 80, 81 (Del. 2001). 5 Id. 6 Id. 7 Id. -3- leading up to the imposition of sentence, no relief is available to Price under Rule 35(a). NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT: s/Joseph T. Walsh Justice -4-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
