Summary
The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Gerald A. Wilmer’s motion to reduce his sentence under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b). The Court held that his claims effectively challenged the legality of his conviction and had to be brought under Rule 61, and that he could not relitigate previously decided issues by changing the procedural rule invoked.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Wilmer could use a motion for sentence reduction under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35 to litigate claims challenging the legality of his conviction and sentence.
- Whether the Superior Court properly denied Wilmer's Rule 35(b) motion as time-barred.
- Whether the State's motion to affirm under Delaware Supreme Court Rule 25(a) should be granted.
Holdings
- Claims that essentially challenge the legality of a conviction must be brought in a motion for postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61, not in a motion for sentence reduction under Rule 35.
- The State's motion to affirm under Supreme Court Rule 25(a) was granted because the appeal was manifestly without merit on the face of Wilmer's opening brief.
Key quotations
“Wilmer cannot continue to litigate previously decided issues by changing the number of the Superior Court rule under which he seeks postconviction relief.” (at 4)
Factual background
Wilmer was indicted in 1996, reindicted in 1997, and convicted of first-degree unlawful sexual intercourse. He received a thirty-year Level V sentence, with fifteen years mandatory, effective April 6, 1996. In October 2014, he filed a Rule 35(b) motion seeking a reduction and credit for incarceration occurring between the original indictment and the nolle prosequi of the original charges, but the Superior Court denied the motion as untimely.
Procedural history
Wilmer was convicted of first-degree unlawful sexual intercourse and sentenced in 1997. After numerous unsuccessful challenges under Rules 61 and 35 and through state and federal habeas petitions, he filed a Rule 35(b) motion seeking a sentence reduction and credit for time incarcerated. The Superior Court denied the motion as time-barred, and the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed on the State's motion to affirm.