Carr v. State

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE § § § § § § § § § § § BRUCE J. CARR, Defendant BelowAppellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff BelowAppellee. No. 160, 2006 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County Cr. ID No. 82002234DI Submitted: May 10, 2006 Decided: July 10, 2006 Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices ORDER This 10th day of July 2006, upon consideration of the appellant s opening brief and the appellee s motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 25(a), it appears to the Court that: (1) The defendant-appellant, Bruce J. Carr, filed an appeal from the Superior Court s March 1, 2006 order denying his motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a).1 The plaintiff- appellee, the State of Delaware, has moved to affirm the Superior Court s judgment on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Carr s opening brief that the appeal is without merit. We agree and AFFIRM. 1 The record reflects that this is Carr s ninth postconviction motion. (2) In June 1982, Carr was found guilty by a Superior Court jury of four counts of Kidnapping in the First Degree, four counts of Conspiracy in the First Degree, one count of Rape in the First Degree, and two counts of Attempted Rape in the First Degree. He was sentenced to six consecutive terms of life imprisonment plus 40 years. Carr s convictions and sentences were affirmed by this Court on direct appeal.2 (3) In this appeal, Carr claims that the Superior Court erred as a matter of law by sentencing him to six consecutive life sentences rather than one life sentence. (4) Rule 35(a) permits the Superior Court to correct an illegal sentence at any time. Relief under Rule 35(a) is available when the sentence imposed exceeds the statutorily authorized 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 authorize.3 (5) At the time Carr was sentenced, Kidnapping in the First Degree and Rape in the First Degree were classified as Class A felonies, which 2 3 Carr v. State, Del. Supr., No. 322, 1982, Horsey, J. ( Nov. 9, 1983). Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998). 2 required the imposition of life sentences.4 Attempted Rape in the First Degree was punishable by up to a life sentence.5 Moreover, all of Carr s sentences were required by statute to be consecutive.6 Contrary to Carr s arguments in his opening brief, neither the sentencing guidelines, which were not in effect at the time he was sentenced, nor Evans v. State, 872 A.2d 539 (Del. 2005), which deals with whether an inmate who receives a parolable life sentence is eligible for conditional release, is relevant to his Rule 35(a) claim. Carr has, thus, failed to demonstrate that his sentences are illegal and that he is entitled to relief under Rule 35(a). (6) It is manifest on the face of Carr s opening brief that this appeal is without merit because the issues presented on appeal are controlled by settled Delaware law and, to the extent that judicial discretion is implicated, clearly there was no abuse of discretion. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 25(a), the State of Delaware s motion to affirm is GRANTED. The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Carolyn Berger Justice 4 Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, §§ 764,783A, and 4205(b) (1). Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, §§ 531 and 4205(b) (1). 6 Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 3901(d). 5 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.