Melendez v. State

Summary

The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s denial of Anibal Melendez’s motion to correct an illegal sentence. The Court rejected his claims that he had a right to be present during resentencing and that his convictions for assault in a detention facility and possession of a deadly weapon during the commission of a felony violated double jeopardy principles. The Court granted the State’s motion to affirm.

Holdings

1. A defendant has a fundamental right to be present at the imposition of a final sentence, including a resentencing that amends an original sentence.
2. The failure to conduct the sentence modification in open court did not constitute plain error requiring remand where the amended order merely eliminated a sentence, did not alter the remaining Level V time or supervision conditions, and gave Melendez the result he sought.
3. Convictions for assault in a detention facility and possession of a deadly weapon during the commission of a felony do not violate double jeopardy principles.
4. A sentence is illegal if it exceeds statutory limits, violates the Double Jeopardy Clause, is ambiguous as to the time or manner of service, is internally contradictory, omits a statutorily required term, is uncertain in substance, or is unauthorized by the judgment of conviction.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Melendez had a right to be present when the Superior Court modified his sentences.
2. Whether the absence of an open-court resentencing constituted plain error requiring remand.
3. Whether convictions for assault in a detention facility and possession of a deadly weapon during the commission of a felony violated the Double Jeopardy Clause.

Disposition

affirmed