State v. Brown

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE )
)
v. ) I.D. Nos. 1611010883
) 1609013813
ABDULLAH BROWN, )
)
Defendant. )

Submitted: July 30, 2025
Decided: August 4, 2025

ORDER

This 4th day of August 2025, upon consideration of the Motion for Correction

of an Illegal Sentence filed by Defendant Abdullah Brown (“Bown”); 1 and the

record in this case, it appears to the Court that:

1. Brown pled guilty in two separate cases. On June 18, 2018, he pled

guilty to Robbery First Degree and Conspiracy Second Degree in ID No.

1609013813.2 In that plea agreement, the parties agreed to recommend a sentence

of 25 years at Level V, suspended after 3 years for descending levels of probation

on the robbery charge and a suspended sentence on the conspiracy charge.3 On

January 23, 2019, Brown pled guilty to Manslaughter and Possession of a Firearm

During the Commission of a Felony (“PFDCF”) in ID No. 1611010883.4 That plea

1
D.I. 69 (ID No. 1611010883); D.I. 48 (ID No. 1609013813).
2
D.I. 37.
3
Id.
4
D.I. 58.
agreement contained the following language: “As to the Manslaughter, Possession

of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony, and Robbery 1st Degree in case #

1609013813, the State will cap its total Level 5 recommendation at 13 years at Level

5. 5 On February 27, 2019, the Court sentenced Brown on all four charges. He was

sentenced to 25 years at Level V, suspended after three years for decreasing levels

of supervision on the robbery charge, 25 years at Level V, suspended after 2 years

for probation on the Manslaughter charge; 10 years at Level V on the PFDCF charge,

and a suspended sentence on the conspiracy charge. 6

2. In his Motion, Brown states: “I accepted a 3 year plea on the robbery

case and 10 years on the manslaughter case capped at 10 years. I never accepted a

open plea deal. I accepted 13 years altogether.” 7 He acknowledges the State

complied with its sentencing obligation under the plea agreement, but complains that

the Court gave him an additional two years. 8 He contends that Erlanger v. United

States9 precludes the Court from imposing those additional two years. 10

5
Id.
6
D.I. 60 (ID No. 1611010883); D.I. 39 (ID No. 1609013813) (Subsequent docket
item references are to ID No. 1611010883.)
7
D.I. 69.
8
Id.
9
602 U.S. 821 (2024).
10
D. I. 69
2
3. Pursuant to Criminal Rule 35(a), the Court may correct an illegal

sentence at any time. 11 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. 12 The Court may correct a sentence imposed in an illegal manner

within the time provided for the reduction of sentence which is 90 days of the

imposition of sentence. 13

4. 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 consider whether

Erlinger may be retroactively applied to his case. The Court need only consult the

Plea Agreement and the Sentence Order to determine Brown is not entitled to relief

under either interpretation of the motion.

5. In Erlinger the Court held 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

11
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(a).
12
Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998).
13
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(a) and (b).
3
reasonable doubt.”’14 In Brown’s case, the Court made no factual determinations

that exposed him to a higher maximum or minimum sentence. It simply sentenced

him within the statutory range. Erlinger and similar cases are not implicated.

6. Finally, Brown seems to argue that the State’s agreement to limit its

sentencing recommendation to 13 years binds the Court to that sentence. Brown is

mistaken. The parties are free to recommend a sentence to the Court, as they did

here. But, the Court is not bound by that recommendation and is fee to sentence

defendants to any sentence within the statutory range, just as it did here.

THEREFORE, Defendant Abdullah Brown’s Motion for Correction of an

Illegal sentence is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

Original to Prothonotary
cc: Andrew J. Vella, Esquire, Chief of Appeals
Abdullah Brown
Investigative Services

14
Erlinger 602 U.S. at 833 (quoting Alleyne v United States, 570 U.S. 99, 111-
113)
4