Wal-Ikram v. State

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

TAHLAL WAL-IKRAM, formerly §
known as ROBERT POTTS, §
§ No. 360, 2024
Defendant Below, §
Appellant, § Court Below—Superior Court
§ of the State of Delaware
v. §
§ Cr. ID No. 1709011232 (N)
STATE OF DELAWARE, §
§
Appellee. §

Submitted: September 24, 2024
Decided: November 12, 2024

Before VALIHURA, TRAYNOR, and GRIFFITHS, Justices.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the appellee’s motion to

affirm, and the record below, it appears to the Court that:

(1) The appellant, Tahlal Wal-Ikram,1 filed this appeal from a Superior

Court order denying his motions for sentence correction and sentence modification.

The State of Delaware has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment on the

ground that it is manifest on the face of Wal-Ikram’s opening brief that the appeal is

without merit. We agree and affirm.

1
The appellant, formerly known as Robert Potts, legally changed his name to Tahlal Wal-Ikram.
We have included the appellant’s former name in the caption for consistency with the Superior
Court records. Like the Superior Court, we refer to him in this order by his current name.
(2) On September 16, 2017, police stopped Wal-Ikram for a vehicle

equipment violation and arrested him after discovering that he possessed a gun and

drugs. On June 7, 2018, a jury found Wal-Ikram guilty of multiple crimes, including

possession of a firearm by a person prohibited (“PFBPP”). For PFBPP, the Superior

Court sentenced Wal-Ikram, effective September 16, 2017, to fifteen years of Level

V incarceration, suspended after five years for decreasing levels of supervision. This

Court affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment on direct appeal.2

(3) In August 2022, Wal-Ikram filed a motion for correction of sentence.

He filed a motion for modification of sentence in September. The Superior Court

stayed those motions pending resolution of Wal-Ikram’s pending motion for

postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. Following the

Superior Court’s denial of Wal-Ikram’s Rule 61 motion in August 2023, the Superior

Court lifted the stay on Wal-Ikram’s motions for correction and modification of

sentence. The State filed its opposition to the motions, and Wal-Ikram filed his

reply. The Superior Court stayed the matter again while Wal-Ikram’s appeal of the

denial of his Rule 61 motion was pending in this Court. This Court affirmed the

Superior Court’s denial of that motion on March 20, 2024.3

2
Potts v. State, 2019 WL 7369199 (Del. Dec. 30, 2019).
3
Wal-Ikram, 2024 WL 1209221 (Del. Mar. 20, 2024).
2
(4) On July 31, 2024, the Superior Court denied Wal-Ikram’s motions for

correction and modification of sentence. The Superior Court held that the five-year

minimum sentence for Wal-Ikram’s PFBPP conviction under 11 Del. C. §

1448(e)(1)(b) was not illegal. The Superior Court concluded that the motion for

sentence modification was untimely, repetitive, and without merit. This appeal

followed.

(5) We review the denial of a motion for correction of illegal sentence for

abuse of discretion.4 To the extent a claim involves a question of law, we review the

claim de novo.5 A sentence is illegal if it exceeds statutory limits, violates the Double

Jeopardy Clause, 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 its substance, or is a sentence that the judgment of conviction did

not authorize.6

(6) In his opening brief on appeal, Wal-Ikram argues that the Superior

Court erred in denying his motion for correction of illegal sentence because his June

2007 conviction for possession with intent to deliver (“PWITD”) did not meet the

requirements of Section 1448(e)(1)(b) for imposition of a five-year minimum Level

V sentence. He does not challenge the Superior Court’s denial of his motion for

4
Fountain v. State, 2014 WL 4102069, at *1 (Del. Aug. 19, 2014).
5
Id.
6
Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998).
3
sentence modification so we do not consider the denial of that motion.7 We find no

merit to Wal-Ikram’s argument that his PFBPP sentence is illegal.

(7) When Wal-Ikram committed PFBPP, Section 1448(e)(1)(b) provided

that:

[A]ny person who is a prohibited person as described in this section and
who knowingly possesses, purchases, owns or controls a firearm or
destructive weapon while so prohibited shall receive a minimum
sentence of…[f]ive years at Level V, if the person does so within 10
years of the date of conviction for any violent felony or the date of
termination of all periods of incarceration or confinement imposed
pursuant to said conviction, whichever is the later date.8

On June 8, 2007, Wal-Ikram pleaded guilty to PWITD, a violent felony under

Section 4201(c), in Cr. ID No. 0612016556. That same day the Superior Court

sentenced Wal-Ikram, effective December 20, 2006, to eight years of Level V

incarceration, suspended after time served for one year of Level III probation. On

December 19, 2007, the Superior Court found that Wal-Ikram had violated his

probation in Cr. ID No. 0612016556 and sentenced him, effective November 30,

2007, to seven years of Level V incarceration, suspended after sixty days and then

discharged.

7
Supr. Ct. R. 14(b)(vi)(A)(3) (“The merits of any argument that is not raised in the body of the
opening brief shall be deemed waived and will not be considered by the Court on appeal.”);
Murphy v. State, 632 A.2d 1150, 1152 (Del. 1993) (recognizing that the failure to raise a legal
issue in an opening brief generally constitutes a waiver of that issue on appeal).
8
11 Del. C. § 1448(e)(1)(b) (emphasis added).
4
(8) As the Superior Court correctly found, “all periods of incarceration or

confinement” imposed for Wal-Ikram’s June 8, 2007 PWITD conviction did not

terminate until he completed the sixty-day Level V VOP sentence imposed on

December 19, 2007.9 Because Wal-Ikram’s commission of PFBPP on September

16, 2017 fell within ten years of the termination of “all periods of incarceration or

confinement” for his 2007 PWITD conviction, the five-year minimum Level V

sentence for his PFBPP conviction is not illegal.10

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is

GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court be AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Gary F. Traynor
Justice

9
11 Del. C. § 1448(e)(1)(b).
10
Id.
5