JAMES A. THOMAS, Defendant Below, Appellant,
STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee.
Submitted: September 5, 2019
Below-Superior Court of the State of Delaware Cr. ID No.
VALIHURA, SEITZ, and TRAYNOR, Justices.
F. TRAYNOR JUSTICE.
consideration of the appellant's opening brief, the
appellee's motion to affirm, and the record below, it
appears to the Court that:
appellant, James A. Mapp, Jr., filed this appeal from the
Superior Court's denial of a motion for correction of
illegal sentence. The State has moved to affirm the judgment
below on the ground that it is manifest on the face of
Mapp's opening brief that his appeal is without merit. We
agree and affirm.
1993, Mapp pleaded guilty to Unlawful Sexual Intercourse
First Degree and Unlawful Sexual Intercourse Second Degree.
After a presentence investigation, the Superior Court
sentenced Mapp to life in prison, plus twenty years. He did
not file a direct appeal. Since then, Mapp has filed multiple
motions for postconviction relief or for correction or
reduction of his sentence, as well as a federal petition for
a writ of habeas corpus.
April 2019, Mapp filed a motion for correction of illegal
sentence under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a). As he had
in several of his prior motions, Mapp again challenged his
conviction and sentence on the basis that he was not legally
competent when he entered his guilty plea because he was
under the influence of certain medications. The Superior
Court denied Mapp's motion for correction of sentence on
the basis that the issues set forth in his motion had already
been litigated and decided. This appeal followed.
review the denial of a motion for correction of sentence for
abuse of discretion. To the extent that the claim involves a
question of law, we review the claim de
novo. A sentence is illegal if it exceeds
statutory limits, 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 its substance, or is a
sentence that the judgment of conviction did not
Superior Court did not err in denying Mapp's motion for
correction of sentence. Mapp's attempt to use a motion
for correction of sentence as a means to withdraw his guilty
plea is outside the limited scope of Rule
35(a). As the Superior Court recognized,
Mapp's arguments have previously been considered, and the
Superior Court and this Court have held that his guilty plea
was entered knowingly and voluntarily. He cannot
relitigate these issues, which are barred by the procedural
hurdles of Superior Court Criminal Rule 61, in the guise of a
motion for correction of sentence.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Affirm is GRANTED
and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
 It appears that after the appellant
filed this appeal, he officially changed his name to James A.
Mapp, Jr. We therefore refer to the appellant as
"Mapp" in ...