Background
Jerry Reed appealed from the Superior Court’s denial of his motion for sentence correction under Superior Court Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(a). The State moved to affirm on the ground that the opening brief showed the appeal was without merit, and the Delaware Supreme Court agreed. Reed had been indicted for crimes arising from the death of Isaac Hatton, who was shot to death in the early morning hours of September 26, 2018, or very late the previous evening.
Reed pleaded guilty to manslaughter and pleaded no contest to possession of a firearm during commission of a felony (“PFDCF”). After a presentence investigation, the Superior Court sentenced Reed as follows: for manslaughter, twenty-five years of imprisonment, suspended after fifteen years for decreasing levels of supervision; and for PFDCF, five years of imprisonment. In March 2025, Reed filed his Rule 35(a) motion, arguing that his sentence was illegal because the minimum sentence to which he was exposed had been enhanced based on facts not found by a jury, in violation of Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024).
The Court’s Holding
The Court explained that denial of a motion to correct an illegal sentence is reviewed for abuse of discretion, while legal questions are reviewed de novo. A sentence is illegal only in limited circumstances, including where it exceeds statutory limits, violates double jeopardy, is ambiguous or internally contradictory, omits a statutorily required term, is uncertain in substance, or is unauthorized by the judgment of conviction.
At the time of Reed’s crimes, manslaughter and PFDCF were class B felonies carrying a sentencing range of two to twenty-five years. For PFDCF, the minimum increased to five years if the offender had “been at least twice previously convicted of a felony in this State or elsewhere.” The Court held that Erlinger did not apply to Reed’s manslaughter sentence because the penalty range for that offense was not enhanced. As to PFDCF, the plea agreement and truth-in-sentencing form reflected a five-to-twenty-five-year penalty, and during the plea hearing defense counsel stated that Reed understood he faced an increased five-year minimum because of his criminal history; Reed confirmed that he understood.
The Court therefore concluded that Reed pleaded no contest to PFDCF as a class B felony subject to a five-year minimum and had not identified any factual basis on which he could have disputed that he had at least two prior felony convictions. Because he asserted no ground on which he could have contested the enhancement, he failed to establish that his sentence was illegal under Erlinger. The Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment.
Key Takeaways
- Erlinger did not affect Reed’s manslaughter sentence because that sentencing range was not enhanced.
- Reed’s PFDCF plea paperwork and plea colloquy showed he was subject to, and understood, the five-year minimum.
- Reed did not articulate any factual basis to dispute that he had at least two prior felony convictions.
- The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed denial of Rule 35(a) relief because Reed failed to show an illegal sentence.
Why It Matters
This order applies Erlinger in a narrow, record-specific way: where the defendant’s plea documents and colloquy already reflect the enhanced minimum, and the defendant offers no factual basis to contest the prior-conviction predicate, a Rule 35(a) illegality claim will fail. It distinguishes between an unenhanced sentence and an enhanced one, and it ties the outcome to the particular PFDCF record rather than announcing a broader categorical rule.
The decision also reinforces that Delaware’s illegal-sentence doctrine remains limited to the recognized categories of illegality. For defense counsel and prosecutors, the case underscores the importance of the plea agreement, truth-in-sentencing form, and colloquy in later sentencing challenges.