Summary
This Delaware Superior Court order addresses Defendant Markel Richards’ motion to vacate his sentence as unconstitutional and illegal. The court reviews the plea agreement, which carried an 11-year minimum mandatory sentence and a 138-year maximum, and notes the actual sentence imposed was 64 years at Level V with 21 years suspended. Relying on Erlinger v. United States, the court determines that no judicial fact-finding occurred to improperly enhance the statutory sentencing range. Accordingly, the motion is denied.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the sentence enhancement violated the Fifth and Sixth Amendments and due‑process rights under Erlinger v. United States
- Whether the motion to vacate the sentence is timely under Criminal Rule 35(a)
Holdings
- The court held that no factual determination increased Richards’ exposure to a higher maximum or minimum sentence; therefore Erlinger does not apply and the sentence is not unconstitutional.
- The court held that the motion is cognizable but not time‑barred, yet denied relief because the sentence was not illegal.
Key quotations
““[a] fact that increases a defendant’s exposure to punishment, whether by triggering a higher maximum or minimum sentence, must be “submitted to a jury” and found unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt.”” (-)
Factual background
Richards pleaded guilty to illegal gang participation, manslaughter, three counts of second‑degree conspiracy, two counts of motor‑vehicle theft, two counts of first‑degree assault, attempted assault and possession of a firearm during a felony. He faced a statutory minimum of 11 years and a maximum of 138 years; the State recommended no more than 18 years, but the court sentenced him to 64 years, suspended after 21 years.