Carney v. State

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

DEONTA CARNEY, §
§ No. 210, 2025
Defendant Below, §
Appellant, § Court Below–Superior Court
§ of the State of Delaware
v. §
§ Cr. ID No. 1910011637A (N)
STATE OF DELAWARE, § 1910002022 (N)
§ 2009010583 (N)
Appellee. §

Submitted: July 11, 2025
Decided: September 29, 2025

Before VALIHURA, TRAYNOR, and LEGROW, Justices.

ORDER

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

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

(1) Deonta Carney appeals the Superior Court’s denial of his motion for

the correction of an illegal sentence. The State of Delaware has moved to affirm the

judgment below on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Carney’s opening

brief that his appeal is without merit. We agree and affirm.

(2) On July 20, 2021, Carney resolved three sets of pending criminal

charges and a violation of probation by pleading guilty to two counts of second-

degree robbery (as lesser-included offenses of first-degree robbery), two counts of

possession of a firearm by a person prohibited (PFBPP), and one count of gang
participation. Following a presentence investigation, the Superior Court sentenced

Carney to a total of 13 years of incarceration, followed by decreasing levels of

supervision. We affirmed Carney’s convictions and sentence on direct appeal.1

(3) In April 2025, Carney moved for the correction of an illegal sentence

under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a). Carney claimed that his five-year

minimum-mandatory sentences for PFBPP are illegal because they were enhanced

based on facts not found unanimously by a jury, in violation of Erlinger v. United

States.2 The Superior Court denied the motion because Carney “expressly admitted”

that he had been convicted of a violent felony within the last 10 years and he was

therefore subject to enhanced sentencing under 11 Del. C. § 1448(e)(1).3 Carney

appeals.

(4) 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

1
Carney v. State, 319 A.3d 842 (Del. 2024).
2
602 U.S. 821 (2024).
3
App. to Opening Br. at A18.
4
Fountain v. State, 2014 WL 4102069, at *1 (Del. Aug. 19, 2014).
5
Id.
2
statute, is uncertain as to its substance, or is a sentence that the judgment of

conviction did not authorize.6

(5) We agree with the Superior Court’s determination that Carney’s

sentence is not illegal. When Carney committed the PFBPP offenses, Section

1448(e) provided in relevant part:

Notwithstanding any provision of this section or Code to the contrary,
any 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:
…

b. Five 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….7

(6) In Erlinger, the United States Supreme Court considered a sentence

imposed under the federal Armed Career Criminal Act and stated that “[v]irtually

any fact that increases the prescribed range of penalties to which a criminal

defendant is exposed must be resolved by a unanimous jury beyond a reasonable

doubt” or “freely admitted in a guilty plea.”8 As part of his plea agreement and

during the guilty plea colloquy, Carney acknowledged that he was guilty of PFBPP

6
Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998).
7
11 Del. C. § 1448(e)(1) (effective Dec. 27, 2018, to Oct. 19, 2021).
8
Erlinger, 602 U.S. at 834 (citation modified).
3
after having been convicted of criminally negligent homicide, a violent felony, in

2019.9 His sentence is therefore not illegal under Erlinger.

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

be GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court be AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Gary F. Traynor
Justice

9
Indeed, Carney was serving the probationary period of his sentence for criminally negligent
homicide when he committed the offenses at issue on appeal.
4