Boyce v. State

Summary

The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Nicholas C. Boyce’s motion to correct an illegal sentence following a violation-of-probation sentencing. The Court held that the motion was not subject to Rule 35(b)’s ninety-day limitation, but concluded that requiring the nonsuspended portion of the VOP sentence to be served day-for-day under 11 Del. C. § 4204(k) did not make the sentence illegal. The Court held that Boyce’s consecutive-sentence claim was untimely and declined to review his unpreserved claim for credit for time served on dismissed charges.

Holdings

1. A motion to correct an illegal sentence under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a) is not subject to Rule 35(b)'s ninety-day limitation.
2. A violation-of-probation sentence is not illegal merely because the court requires the nonsuspended portion to be served day-for-day under 11 Del. C. § 4204(k), so long as the nonsuspended portion does not exceed the term remaining suspended under the prior sentence.
3. The claim that the sentencing court failed to state on the record whether sentences would run consecutively concerns the manner in which the sentence was imposed, not an illegal sentence under Rule 35(a), and therefore was subject to Rule 35(b)'s ninety-day limitation.
4. The Supreme Court could not review Boyce's credit-for-time-served claim because he had not raised it in the Superior Court and the appellate record was not developed.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Boyce's motion to correct an illegal sentence was subject to the ninety-day limitation in Delaware Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b).
2. Whether requiring the nonsuspended portion of Boyce's violation-of-probation sentence to be served day-for-day under 11 Del. C. § 4204(k) rendered the sentence illegal.
3. Whether the claim that the Superior Court failed to state on the record that the sentences would run consecutively was an illegal-sentence claim or an untimely claim that the sentence was imposed in an illegal manner.
4. Whether Boyce could obtain appellate review of his request for credit for time served on dismissed charges when he had not raised that issue in the Superior Court.

Disposition

affirmed