State v. Shelley

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE STATE OF DELAWARE ) ) v. ) I.D. No. 9804001318 ) LEROY SHELLEY, ) ) Defendant. ) Submitted: June 6, 2025 Decided: June 12, 2025 Upon Defendant’s Motion Pursuant to Rule 35(a) to Correct an Illegal Sentence DENIED. ORDER Leroy Shelley, SBI# 603729, James T. Vaughn Correctional Center, 1181 Paddock Road, Smyrna, DE 19977, pro se. Brian J. Robertson, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 820 N. French St., Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for the State of Delaware. WHARTON, J.  This 12th day of June 2025, upon consideration of Defendant Leroy Shelley’s (“Shelley”) Motion to Correct an Illegal Sentence Pursuant to Rule 35(a),1 and the record in this matter, it appears to the Court that: 1. Shelley was convicted by a jury in 2007 of two counts each of Robbery First Degree, Kidnapping Second Degree, and Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony (“PFDCF”), as well as a single count of Conspiracy Second Degree. He waived his right to counsel and represented himself at trial. He was sentenced on March 6, 2008, to 18 ½ years of unsuspended imprisonment followed by probation. That period of imprisonment was broken down as follows: four years with no probation to follow on each robbery charge, five years suspended after two years for probation on each kidnapping charge, three years with no probation to follow on each PFDCF charge, and six months with no probation to follow on the conspiracy charge. 2. Shelley did not file a direct appeal. Instead, he has steadily pursued unsuccessful collateral attacks on his conviction and sentences. First he moved for postconviction relief in 2009. That motion was denied as procedurally defaulted because Shelley’s claims could have been raised on direct appeal had he filed one.2 Shelley’s appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court of that order was dismissed as 1 D.I. 113. 2 D.I. 28. 2 untimely.3 After an unsuccessful attempt at federal habeas corpus relief in 2010,4 Shelley filed his first attempt to vacate his sentence. That motion, in which he argued that his re-indictment was defective, causing the court to lack jurisdiction, was treated as a second postconviction relief motion and was denied again for procedural default.5 The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed that decision. 6 This Court summarily dismissed his third postconviction relief motion on October 27, 2014. 7 It denied Shelley’s Motion for Modification of Sentence on March 7, 2017.8 The Supreme Court affirmed.9 This Court denied his Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus on April 20, 2017.10 The Supreme Court affirmed.11 A Motion for Sentence Clarification was denied on October 6, 2017.12 The Supreme Court affirmed. 13 Shelley’s Motion to Recuse was denied on July 13, 2018. 14 The Supreme Court dismissed his appeal.15 A Motion to Vacate Sentence was denied on July 12, 2019. 16 A second Motion to Vacate was denied on July 31, 2019.17 That decision was affirmed on January 7, 3 Shelley v. State, 2010 WL 1627335 (Del. Apr. 21, 2010). 4 Shelley v. Delaware, 2012 WL 379907 (D. Del. 2012). 5 D.I. 61. 6 Shelley v. State, 53 A.3d 303 (Del. 2012). 7 Shelley v. State, 2014 WL 5713236 (Del. Super. Oct. 27, 2014). 8 D.I. 53. 9 Shelley v. State, 2017 WL 2686551 (Del. Jun. 21, 2017). 10 D.I. 63. 11 Shelley v. State, 2017 WL 3122316 (Del. Jul. 17. 2107). 12 D.I. 66. 13 Shelley v. State, 2018 WL 3173852 (Del. Jun. 26, 2018). 14 D.I. 74. 15 Shelley v. State, 2018 WL 6331623 (Del. Dec. 3, 2018). 16 State v. Shelley, 2019 WL 3248617 (Del. Super. July 12, 2019). 17 State v. Shelley, 2019 WL 3458725 (Del. Super. July 31, 2019). 3 2020. 18 His fourth postconviction relief motion was denied by this Court on January 28, 2020. 19 That denial was affirmed on June 30, 2020. 20 On March 26, 2021, Shelley filed a Motion for Bail Pending Appeal. 21 That motion was denied on April 5, 2021.22 Shelley did not appeal. On December 4, 2023, this Court denied his Motion Pursuant to Rule 35 to Correct an Illegal Sentence.23 That denial was affirmed on May 13, 2024. 24 On May 20, 2025, this Court denied a similar Motion to Correct an Illegal Sentence under Rule 35(a). 25 3. The current motion, again brought under Rule 35(a), alleges that his sentences are illegal because; (1) they violate the “ex post facto clause;” (2) the punishments for robbery and PFDCF had increased by statute by the time of his sentencing; and (3) the