State v. Wallace

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE )
)
v. ) I.D. No. 2201005596
)
BOOKER WALLACE, )
)
Defendant. )

Submitted: June 9, 2025
Decided: June 17, 2025

ORDER

This 17th day of May 2025, upon consideration of Defendant Booker

Wallace’s (“Wallace”) Motion for Correction of an Illegal Sentence,1 and the record

in this matter, it appears to the Court that:

1. In May 2023, Wallace pled guilty to assault in the first degree, unlawful

sexual contact in the third degree, strangulation, endangering the welfare of a child,

and possession of a deadly weapon during the commission of a felony. 2 He agreed

to ask for a sentence of no less than seven years, and the State agreed to ask for an

aggregate sentence of no more than 14 years of unsuspended Level V incarceration.3

The Delaware Sentencing Accountability Commission (“SENTAC”) guidelines

1
D.I. 31.
2
D.I. 14.
3
Id.
recommend a presumptive aggregate sentence of up to 12 years at Level V. 4 The

Court sentenced him to 21 years at Level V. 5 Wallace appealed.

2. In his direct appeal, Wallace argued that this Court erred by failing to

provide a “statement of reasons” sufficient to satisfy the requirements of 11 Del. C.

§ 4204(c)(5) and Delaware Supreme Court Administrative Directive No. 76.6

Wallace also contended that the Superior Court may have sentenced him with a

closed mind because the court exceeded both the SENTAC presumptive sentence

and the State's 14-year recommendation.7 He requested that the Delaware Supreme

Court remand for a new sentencing hearing. 8 In affirming his sentence, that Court

held:

The court identified the aggravating and mitigating
factors—including excessive cruelty, need for correctional
treatment, undue depreciation, and criminal history and
contempt of a violation order (aggravating) and mental
health issues, remorse, limited criminal history, and
familial involvement (mitigating). The court stated that the
aggravating factor of excessive cruelty “carrie[d] a lot of
weight,” and issued the sentence after “weighing all of
those factors and the significant and severe potentially
lethal injuries to [the victim].” The court accordingly
stated the reasons for the deviation with particularity
enough to enable effective appellate review by the Court.9

4
SENTAC Benchbook 2023.
5
D.I. 17.
6
Wallace v. State, 2024 WL 3874151 at *1 (Del. Aug. 20, 2024).
7
Id.
8
Id.
9
Id. at *6 (internal citations omitted).
2
3. Back in this Court, Wallace moved for a sentence modification. 10 He

identified the bases for modification as: (1) abuse of discretion; (b) family issues; (3)

cruel and unusual punishment; and (4) ineffective counsel.11 That motion was

denied.12

4. Wallace now moves pro se for correction of an illegal sentence. In his

motion, he claims that his sentences were improperly enhanced by the sentencing

judge based on the judge’s own factfinding of aggravating factors in violation of

Erlinger v. United States 13 and its predecessors.14 He argues that a jury must

adjudicate facts relevant to the imposition of any enhanced penalties under Erlinger.15

5. Pursuant to Criminal Rule 35(a), the Court may correct an illegal

sentence at any time. 16 A sentence is illegal if it violates double jeopardy, 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 the substance of the sentence, or is a sentence that the judgment of conviction

did not authorize. 17 The Court may correct a sentence imposed in an illegal manner

10
D.I. 22.
11
Id.
12
State v. Wallace, 2025 WL 447744 (Del. Super. Ct. Feb. 10, 2025).
13
602 U.S. 821 (2024).
14
D.I. 31.
15
Id.
16
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(a).
17
Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998).
3
within the time provided for the reduction of sentence which is within 90 days from

the imposition of sentence.18

6. Here, the Court need not determine whether the motion more properly is

one to correct an illegal sentence, and thus cognizable, or a time barred motion to

correct a sentence illegally imposed. Nor, need the Court determine Erlinger’s

retroactive effect. The Court need only consult the Sentence to determine Wallace is

not entitled to relief under either interpretation of the motion.

7. Erlinger provides that ‘“[a] fact that increases” a defendant’s exposure

to punishment, whether by triggering a higher maximum or minimum sentence, must

be “submitted to a jury” and found unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt.”’19

8. A review of Wallace’s sentence highlights the motion’s deficiencies. On

each charge, he was sentenced within the statutory ranges. In Wallace’s case, the

Court made no factual determinations that exposed him to a higher maximum or

minimum sentence. It simply determined certain aggravating factors warranted a

sentence above the SENTAC guidelines, but within the statutory parameters. The

Court not did find any facts that enhanced the range within which Wallace was

sentenced. Erlinger cannot be read to require the Court to submit aggravating (or

mitigating) circumstances to a jury when such circumstances would not alter the

statutory range of penalties. It is the Court, in its discretion, not the jury who

18
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(a) and (b).
19
Erlinger 602 U.S. at 833 (quoting Alleyne v United States, 570 U.S. 99, 111-
113)
4
determines the proper sentence within the statutory range. Erlinger and similar cases

simply are not implicated here. Wallace’s sentences were authorized by law and not

illegal.

THEREFORE, Defendant Booker Wallace’s Motion for Correction of an

Illegal Sentence is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Ferris W. Wharton
Ferris W. Wharton, J.

oc: Prothonotary
Jenna Milecki, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General
Booker Wallace (SBI #00976382)
ISO

5