Summary
The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Kenneth Mayo’s motion to correct an illegal sentence under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a). The Court held that possession of a firearm by a person prohibited is a violent felony under Delaware law, rejected Mayo’s constitutional challenge based on Johnson v. United States, and found no plain error in his additional habitual-offender claims.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Mayo's sentence was illegal under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a) because possession of a firearm by a person prohibited was allegedly not a violent felony under 11 Del. C. § 4201(c).
- Whether Johnson v. United States rendered Delaware's violent-felony and habitual-offender statutes unconstitutional.
- Whether Mayo's newly raised claims concerning rehabilitation, the habitual-offender motion, and the lack of a formal hearing constituted plain error.
- Whether Mayo's claims concerning the sentencing hearing could be reviewed when the relevant transcript was not included in the appellate record.
Holdings
- A sentence is not illegal under Rule 35(a) merely because the defendant disputes the statutory classification underlying habitual-offender sentencing; Mayo's sentence was authorized by 11 Del. C. §§ 4201(c) and 4214(a) and was therefore not illegal.
- Johnson v. United States did not invalidate 11 Del. C. §§ 4201(c) or 4214 because the unconstitutional residual-clause language addressed in Johnson does not appear in those Delaware statutes.
- Mayo's claims that he lacked ample rehabilitation time, that the Superior Court lacked the State's habitual-offender motion, and that no formal hearing or examination occurred did not establish plain error.
- Appellate review of Mayo's claims concerning the sentencing hearing was precluded because he failed to provide the relevant transcript.
Key quotations
“Under Rule 35(a), a sentence is illegal if it exceeds statutory limits, violates double jeopardy, 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 an unauthorized sentence.” (at 2)
“This language does not appear in Section 4201 or Section 4214.” (at 3)
“The failure to include a transcript of the June 9, 2015 hearing precludes appellate review of Mayo’s claims regarding that hearing.” (at 4)
Factual background
Mayo pleaded guilty in March 2015 to possession of a firearm by a person prohibited. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the State sought habitual-offender sentencing under 11 Del. C. § 4214(a), and the Superior Court sentenced Mayo to fifteen years of Level V incarceration followed by six months of Level IV supervision. Mayo later challenged the sentence, arguing that possession of a firearm by a person prohibited was not constitutionally a violent felony and raising additional claims concerning rehabilitation, the habitual-offender motion, and the sentencing hearing.
Procedural history
Mayo pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a person prohibited. The Superior Court declared him a habitual offender under 11 Del. C. § 4214(a) and sentenced him to fifteen years of Level V incarceration followed by six months of Level IV supervision. After the Superior Court denied his Rule 35(a) motion challenging the legality and constitutionality of the sentence, Mayo appealed; the Supreme Court affirmed without a transcript of the relevant sentencing hearing.