Christopher Wehde v. State of Delaware

Summary

The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s denial of Christopher Wehde’s motion for correction of sentence. The Court held that Wehde’s challenges to his habitual-offender status, predicate convictions, violation-of-probation sentences, and sentencing procedure were either meritless, outside the scope of Rule 35, or untimely absent extraordinary circumstances.

Holdings

1. Wehde's challenges to the habitual-offender sentence were meritless. The record supported the previously affirmed determination that three separate successive convictions qualified as predicate convictions under 11 Del. C. § 4214(a), and Wehde supplied no authority showing that the alleged overlap, expiration status, same-day violation-of-probation sentences, or alleged illegality of separate violation-of-probation sentences invalidated the habitual-offender designation.
2. Later reclassification of crimes underlying predicate felony convictions as misdemeanors does not eliminate their status as predicate convictions under § 4214(a); the classification at the time of conviction controls.
3. A Rule 35 proceeding presumes a valid conviction and may not be used to challenge the legality of the conviction or raise alleged errors occurring before sentencing.
4. Wehde was not entitled to relief on his claim that he should have been sentenced by the judge who accepted his guilty plea. The claim concerned a sentence allegedly imposed in an illegal manner, was filed more than ninety days after sentencing, and did not establish extraordinary circumstances or a Department of Correction application under 11 Del. C. § 4217.
5. The additional claims raised for the first time on appeal did not constitute plain error and therefore did not warrant consideration or relief.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Wehde's sentence as a habitual offender was illegal because the predicate convictions allegedly overlapped, involved allegedly illegal violation-of-probation sentences, were imposed with related violation-of-probation sentences, or were later reclassified as misdemeanors.
2. Whether Rule 35 permitted Wehde to challenge the validity of his underlying Rape in the Fourth Degree conviction or assert that he was not guilty of that offense.
3. Whether sentencing by a judge other than the judge who accepted Wehde's guilty plea rendered the sentence illegal or warranted relief under Rule 35(b).
4. Whether the Superior Court committed plain error by failing to hold a separate hearing on the habitual-offender petition, by considering habitual-offender status applicable to a probationer, or by denying relief despite alleged problems concerning counsel and judicial impartiality.

Disposition

affirmed