JEROME B. REED, Defendant Below, Appellant,
STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee.
Submitted: November 20, 2017
Below-Superior Court of the State of Delaware Cr. ID No.
VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices.
T. Vaughn, Jr. Justice.
9th day of February 2018, upon consideration of
the appellant's opening brief, the appellee's motion
to affirm, and the Superior Court record, it appears to the
Following his jury trial and convictions in 2001 for robbery
first degree and other offenses, the appellant, Jerome B.
Reed, was declared a habitual offender and was sentenced to a
total of fifty-one years of Level V incarceration. Reed's
convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. Since then, Reed
has filed seven unsuccessful motions for postconviction
relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 and has appealed
the denial of the first, second, fifth, sixth, and seventh
motions, all without success.
addition to his postconviction motions under Rule 61, Reed
has filed two unsuccessful motions for correction of illegal
sentence under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a). Reed's
first motion raised a claim that his habitual offender
sentence was illegal because it exceeded forty-five years.
The Superior Court denied the claim as without merit, and on
appeal we affirmed. Three years later, Reed repeated the claim
in his second Rule 35(a) motion and further claimed that his
trial counsel's failure to notify him about the habitual
offender motion and to ensure that he received a separate
hearing on the motion led to Reed being wrongfully declared
and sentenced as a habitual offender. By order dated August
9, 2017, the Superior Court denied Reed's second motion
for correction of sentence on the basis that his claims
should have been raised in a motion for postconviction relief
under Rule 61. This appeal followed.
Having carefully considered the parties' submissions on
appeal, we affirm the denial of Reed's second motion for
correction of sentence, albeit on grounds different from
those relied upon by the Superior Court. Although the
Superior Court is correct that a defendant cannot litigate
previously decided issues or procedurally barred claims
simply by changing the number of the rule under which he
seeks relief, we find that much of Reed's second motion
for correction of sentence was reviewable under Rule
35(a). Reed's claim about the length of his
sentence was raised in his first motion under Rule 35(a),
denied by the Superior Court, and rejected on
appeal. The same claim in his second motion under
Rule 35(a) is without merit under the law of the
case. And because Reed's claims challenging
the notice, hearing, and decision on the habitual offender
motion are properly viewed as an attack on the manner in
which the sentence was imposed,  those claims are untimely
under Rule 35(a) because they were not raised within ninety
days of sentencing.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is
GRANTED. The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
 Reed v. State, 2002 WL
1358062 (Del. June 21, 2002).
Reed v. State, 2004 WL 439802
(Del. March 2, 2004); Reed v. State, 2006 WL 2388943
(Del. Aug. 17, 2006); Reed v. State, 2008 WL 4057916
(Del. Sept. 2, 2008); Reed v State, 2012 WL 162030
(Del. Jan. 18, 2012); Reed v. ...