The opinion
SUPERIOR COURT
OF THE
STATE OF DELAWARE
PAUL R. WALLACE LEONARD L. WILLIAMS JUSTICE CENTER
JUDGE 500 N. KING STREET, SUITE 10400
WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801
(302) 255-0660
Submitted: May 15, 2025
Decided: June 2, 2025
Mr. Janard Brown
S.B.I. No. 425741
James T. Vaughn Correctional Center
1181 Paddock Road
Smyrna, Delaware 19977
RE: State v. Janard Brown
ID Nos. 1309018287, 1209007265, and 1208005401
Motion for Correction of Sentence
Dear Mr. Brown:
The Court is in receipt of your most recent request for sentencing relief. (D.I.
33/89/62). For the reasons now explained, you have failed to demonstrate any illegality
in your sentence.
In September 2013, you were indicted for first-degree perjury, witness
tampering, bribing a witness, second-degree criminal solicitation, and second-degree
conspiracy.1 These charges arose from testimony you solicited in your August 2013
trial that resulted in your conviction for drug dealing and driving after judgment
prohibited.2
On October 11, 2013, you were sentenced for those drug-dealing and driving
after judgment prohibited convictions.3 That sentence includes: (a) for drug dealing—
1
D.I. 1 - ID No. 1309018287 (Indictment).
2
D.I. 43 - ID No. 1209007265.
3
At that proceeding, you were also sentenced for three misdemeanor counts of non-compliance
State v. Janard Brown
ID Nos. 1309018287, 1209007265, and 1208005401
June 2, 2025
Page 2 of 4
15 years at Level V (with credit for 37 days previously served), suspended after 8 years
for 6 months at Level IV and 2 years at Level III probation; and (b) for driving after
judgment prohibited—1 year at Level V.4
You eventually pleaded guilty to the perjury, witness tampering, bribery, and
criminal solicitation counts.5 The State agreed to cap its unsuspended Level V
recommendation to four years and enter a nolle prosequi on the remaining counts in the
indictment. And on May 16, 2014, you were was sentenced as follows: (a) for first-
degree perjury—8 years of Level V, suspended after 4 years 6 months at Level IV and
1 year at Level III probation; (b) for witness tampering—5 years of Level V, suspended
after 1 year for 1 year of Level II probation; (c) for bribery—5 years of Level V,
suspended in whole for Level II probation; and (d) for second-degree criminal
solicitation—3 years of Level V, also suspended in whole for Level II probation.6
At the time of your sentencings, the Court was statutorily prohibited from
ordering any of your prison terms to run concurrently—either with each other or with
the other sentences imposed in other cases.7
You insist your sentence is “illegal” and need of correction under this Court’s
Rule 35(a). That rule permits this Court to correct an illegal sentence “at any time.”8
with bond conditions arising from a separate indictment and guilty plea in Case ID No.
1208005401 (D.I. 57 – Sentence Order). Your latest application makes no mention of those
sentences, so they are not addressed here and further.
4
D.I. 49 - ID No. 1209007265 (Sentence Order).
5
D.I. 16 - ID No. 1309018287 (Plea Agreement and Truth in Sentencing Form).
6
D.I. 17 - ID No. 1309018287 (Sentence Order).
7
DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 3901(d) (2013) (“No sentence of confinement of any criminal
defendant . . . shall be made to run concurrently with any other sentence of confinement imposed
on such criminal defendant.”).
8
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(a) (“Correction of sentence. -- The court may correct an illegal sentence
at any time . . .”).
State v. Janard Brown
ID Nos. 1309018287, 1209007265, and 1208005401
June 2, 2025
Page 3 of 4
Relief under Rule 35(a) is available when, inter alia, the sentence imposed: exceeds
the statutorily-authorized limits; 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
authorize.9
You have joined many other sentenced inmates in filing the same hand-written
fill-in-the-blank forms complaining that your sentence is illegal and you are due
resentencing under the United States Supreme Court decision in Erlinger v. United
States.10 But as is the case with so many of those others, Erlinger is of no utility to you
because not one of your several sentences was—via some statutory recidivist
mechanism—enhanced in any way on either the minimum or maximum ends.11 Indeed,
each individual term of imprisonment comprising your sentence is well within the
ordinary base minimum and maximum incarcerative terms the then-extant relevant
statutes prescribed.12
9
Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998).
10
See State v. Morrison, 2025 WL 1431931, at *2 (Del. Super. Ct. May 19, 2025) (citing State
v. Archy, 2025 WL 1330215, at *2 (Del. Super. Ct. May 7, 2025) which made noted of the
“blizzard of pro se pleadings from inmates seeking relief” through resort to Erlinger v. United
States 602 U.S. 821 (2024)).
11
See id. (“[W]hile in his most recent prayer for sentencing relief, [movant] has joined chorus
with so many other sentenced inmates incanting the United States Supreme Court decision
in Erlinger v. United States, Erlinger can lend no voice here because his PFDCF sentence wasn’t
enhanced in any way on either the minimum or maximum end.).
12
See DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 16, § 4753 and tit. 11, and § 4205(b)(3)(2013) (then-extant drug
dealing in cocaine was a class C felony for which one could receive up to 15 years at Level V);
DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 21, § 2810 (2013) (driving after judgment prohibited carried a sentence of not
less than 90 days and up to 30 months at Level V); DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, §§ 1223 and 4205(b)(4)
(first-degree perjury was a class D felony for which one could receive up to 8 years at Level V);
id. at §§ 1261, 1263, and 4205(b)(5) (witness tampering and bribery were each class E felonies for
which one could receive up to 5 years at Level V); carrying a “minimum sentence of 3 years” and
a ceiling of “up to 25 years to be served at Level V”); and id. at §§ 1261, 1263, and 4205(b)(5)
(second-degree criminal solicitation was a class F felonies carrying up to 3 years at Level V).
State v. Janard Brown
ID Nos. 1309018287, 1209007265, and 1208005401
June 2, 2025
Page 4 of 4
So, there is no demonstrable illegality in the substance of your sentences and you
are due no relief under this Court’s Criminal Rule 35(a). Your motion thereunder is
DENIED. And because you are manifestly ineligible for Rule 35(a) relief, the Court
will DENY your request for appointment counsel (D.I. 34/90/63) to engage some futile
effort to pursue it.13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Paul R. Wallace
Paul R. Wallace, Judge
cc: James K. McCloskey, Deputy Attorney General
Prothonotary-Criminal
Investigative Services Office
13
See Morrison, 2025 WL 1431931, at *2; State v. Johnson, 2025 WL 1431003, at *2 (Del.
Super. Ct. May 19, 2025).