State v. Brown
CourtSuperior Court of Delaware
Date FiledJuly 29, 2026
Docket2008008152
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
STATE OF DELAWARE )
)
) I.D. No. 2008008152
v. )
)
LAVARE BROWN, )
)
Defendant. )
This 29th day of July, 2026, the Court enters the following Order:
ORDER LIFTING STAY
1. The defendant filed a motion under Rule 35(a) for relief from an allegedly
illegal sentence pursuant to the ruling of the United States Supreme Court in
Erlinger v United States (602 U.S 821 (2024)). This was one of the many
Erlinger claims from inmates at the Department of Corrections filed
throughout the Superior Court. In order to allow for an orderly consideration
of the Erlinger case, the Court stayed further action until the decisional law
began to develop as to the judicial response to Erlinger. While further
litigation may well yield refinements in the Court’s treatment of Erlinger
claims, many are ready for resolution, including this case, and the Court
therefore enters this order lifting the stay in this case.
ORDER ON THE MERITS - DENIED
1. On June 15, 2022, the Defendant pled guilty to two charges: Possession of a
Firearm by a Person Prohibited and Possession of Ammunition by a Person
Prohibited, and Possession of a Controlled Substance. As to the Firearm and
Ammunition charges, defendant was sentenced to 15 years at Level V, the first
10 of which were a mandatory sentence due to defendant’s prior history of
violent felonies. As to the controlled substance charge, Defendant was
sentenced to 15 years at Level V suspended for decreasing levels of probation.
2. Brown contends that his sentence violates the constitutional principles
established in Erlinger.
3. The controlled substance charge to which defendant pled guilty did not
involve any sentence enhancements and the sentence imposed was within the
statutory guidelines. On these facts, Erlinger is not implicated as to
Defendant’s sentence for the controlled substance charge.
4. In Erlinger the United States Supreme Court states that virtually any fact that
increases the prescribed range of penalties to which a criminal defendant is
exposed must be resolved by a unanimous jury beyond a reasonable doubt or
freely admitted in a guilty plea. Johnson v. State, 2025 WL 397431 (Del.
2025). In the instant case the defendant signed the plea agreement which
provided in relevant part “Count 5 – 15 years at Level 5 suspended after 10
years (minimum mandatory due to defendant’s prior violent felony
convictions) for 18 months at Level 3.” On this record the defendant freely
admitted that he was facing a 10-year minimum mandatory sentence because
of his prior violent felony convictions.
5. On these facts Erlinger is not implicated. Defendant’s motion for correction
of an illegal sentence must and hereby is DENIED. Defendant’s request
for counsel, to the extent he made such a request, is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Francis J. Jones
Francis J. Jones, Judge
cc: Original to Prothonotary
Lavare Brown (SBI # 00295633)
Andrew Vella, Deputy Attorney General