Henry v. State

Summary

The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's denial of Patrick Henry's motion to change or correct his sentences. The Court held that Henry's consecutive sentences were not illegal because they complied with the law in effect when imposed, and that his ineffective-assistance claim was not properly raised through a motion to correct an illegal sentence. The Court granted the State's motion to affirm.

Holdings

1. Henry waived the § 3901 claims he had made in the Superior Court because he did not raise them in the body of his opening brief.
2. Henry's consecutive sentences were not illegal because, when they were imposed in 2007, 11 Del. C. § 3901(d) required sentences of confinement to run consecutively, and the convictions arose from two separate incidents.
3. Henry's sentences included the statutorily required period of at least six months of Level IV, III, or II supervision to facilitate his transition back into society.
4. An ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim must be brought through a motion for postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61, not through a Rule 35(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Henry's consecutive sentences were illegal under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a) because they were imposed under the version of 11 Del. C. § 3901(d) requiring consecutive sentences.
2. Whether the sentences lacked the statutorily required period of lower-level custodial supervision for transition back into society.
3. Whether an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim could be raised through a Rule 35(a) motion rather than a motion for postconviction relief under Rule 61.
4. Whether Henry waived the claims concerning 11 Del. C. § 3901 by failing to raise them in the body of his opening brief.

Disposition

affirmed