Brisco v. State

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

JOHN BRISCO, §
§
Defendant Below, § No. 315, 2025
Appellant, §
§ Court Below—Superior Court
v. § of the State of Delaware
§
STATE OF DELAWARE, § Cr. ID No. 1502007987 (N)
§
Appellee. §

Submitted: September 11, 2025
Decided: November 13, 2025

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; LEGROW and GRIFFITHS, Justices.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the appellee’s motion to

affirm, and the record below, it appears to the Court that:

(1) The appellant, John Brisco, filed this appeal from Superior Court orders

denying his motions for correction of illegal sentence. The State of Delaware has

moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment on the grounds that it is manifest on

the face of Brisco opening brief that the appeal is without merit. We agree and

affirm.

(2) A Superior Court jury convicted Brisco of two counts of first-degree

murder, attempted first-degree robbery, first-degree conspiracy, second-degree

conspiracy, gang participation, and related firearms offenses. The Superior Court
sentenced Brisco to an aggregate of two life terms plus thirty-five years of

incarceration. This Court affirmed on direct appeal.1 This Court also affirmed the

Superior Court’s denial of Brisco’s first motion for postconviction relief under

Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.2

(3) On February 12, 2025, Brisco filed a second motion for postconviction

relief, which the Superior Court dismissed on February 24, 2025. On June 3, 2025,

Brisco filed a motion for correction of illegal sentence. He argued that his sentences

were illegal under Erlinger v. United States.3 On June 4, 2025, Brisco filed a motion

for appointment of counsel to assist him with filing a habeas corpus petition or the

appellate process.

(4) On June 16, 2025, the Superior Court denied the motions, finding that

Brisco’s life sentences were statutorily mandated and not enhanced by the

sentencing judge. That same day Brisco filed a motion for correction illegal sentence

that appeared identical to the motion filed on June 3, 2025. On June 18, 2025, the

Superior Court denied the motion. This appeal followed.

(5) In his opening brief, Brisco purports to appeal the Superior Court’s

denial of his second motion for postconviction relief, arguing that his trial counsel

was ineffective, and his motion for correction of illegal sentence, arguing that the

1
Brisco v. State, 186 A.3d 798, 2018 WL 2171231, at *1 (Del. May 10, 2018) (TABLE).
2
Brisco v. State, 338 A.3d 1291, 2025 WL 302795 (Del. Jan. 27, 2025) (TABLE).
3
602 U.S. 821 (2024).
2
Superior Court’s failure to submit sentence-enhancing facts to a jury raises

constitutional concerns under Ehrlinger. Because Brisco did not timely appeal the

denial of his second motion for postconviction relief, the Court lacks jurisdiction to

consider his claims of ineffective assistance.4

(6) We review the denial of a motion for correction of illegal sentence for

abuse of discretion.5 To the extent a claim involves a question of law, we review the

claim de novo.6 A sentence is illegal if it exceeds statutory limits, violates the

Double Jeopardy Clause, 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.7

(7) Describing the Superior Court’s reasoning as partially incorrect, 8 the

State argues that the Superior Court nonetheless correctly denied Brisco’s motion

for correction of illegal sentence. We agree. In Erlinger, the United State Supreme

Court considered a sentence imposed under the federal Armed Career Criminal Act

4
Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(iii)(B) (providing that appeal from postconviction order must be filed within
thirty days of docketing); Carr. v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989) (“Time is a jurisdictional
requirement.”).
5
Fountain v. State, 100 A.3d 1021, 2014 WL 4102069, at *1 (Del. Aug. 19, 2014) (TABLE).
6
Id.
7
Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998).
8
The Superior Court described Brisco’s life sentences for first-degree murder as minimum
mandatory sentences, but under 11 Del. C. § 4209A the sentencing range for a juvenile who
commits first-degree murder is twenty-five years to life imprisonment.
3
and stated that “[v]irtually ‘any fact’ that ‘increase[s] 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).”9 As reflected

in the sentencing transcript, the sentencing judge made no factual determinations

increasing the prescribed range of penalties to which Brisco was exposed.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is

GRANTED, and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ N. Christopher Griffiths
Justice

9
Erlinger, 602 U.S. at 834 (quoting Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000)).
4