“More-Than-Enough” Predicate Felonies: Fulton v. State and the Narrow Path to Extraordinary Circumstances under Delaware Rule 35

Introduction

Fulton v. State, No. 123, 2025, decided by the Supreme Court of Delaware on 1 July 2025, addresses when a defendant may successfully challenge a habitual-offender sentence long after it is imposed. Gene L. Fulton—already a seven-time felon—pleaded guilty to burglary and theft in 2016 and was declared a habitual offender under 11 Del. C. § 4214(a). Seven years later he argued that the habitual-offender motion misidentified three 1992 convictions and that this materially untrue information rendered his fifteen-year sentence illegal or, at minimum, imposed in an illegal manner. The Superior Court denied relief under Criminal Rule 35; the Supreme Court affirmed, holding that:

1. a sentence remains lawful so long as three valid predicate felonies support § 4214(a) sentencing, even if one additional predicate is mis-labelled, and
2. a clerical or descriptive error of this type does not constitute the “extraordinary circumstances” required to file an out-of-time Rule 35(b) motion.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court (Seitz, C.J., joined by Justices Valihura and Griffiths) employed a two-step analysis:

1. Legality of the Sentence. Section 4214(a) authorized a sentencing range of 8 years to life once Fulton had three prior felonies. Fulton conceded three qualifying convictions—carrying a concealed deadly weapon (1986), second-degree assault (1992), and second-degree burglary (2004). Accordingly, the fifteen-year sentence did not exceed statutory limits and was not “illegal.”
2. Timeliness and Extraordinary Circumstances. Motions attacking a sentence “imposed in an illegal manner” must be filed within 90 days of sentencing, absent extraordinary circumstances. The Court ruled that a misstatement in the habitual-offender motion—labeling the 1992 predicates as “unlawful sexual intercourse” rather than “unlawful sexual penetration”—was known to Fulton in 2016 and therefore not extraordinary. His 2023/2024 motions were thus time-barred.

The judgment affirms the Superior Court’s denial of relief and crystallizes a narrow definition of both “illegal sentence” and “extraordinary circumstances” in the habitual-offender context.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

• Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577 (Del. 1998) – Provides the standard for when a sentence is “illegal,” emphasizing limits such as statutory maximum, double-jeopardy violations, ambiguity, or lack of authority.
• Gladden v. State, 2020 WL 773290 (Del. Feb. 17, 2020) – Confirms abuse-of-discretion review for Rule 35 rulings and de novo review for pure legal questions.
• Fountain v. State, 2014 WL 4102069 (Del. Aug. 19, 2014) – Reinforces Rule 35 time limits and the necessity of extraordinary circumstances for late filings.
• Bodnari v. State, 2019 WL 3945647 (Del. Aug. 20, 2019) – Defines “extraordinary circumstances” as events entirely beyond the defendant’s control that prevented a timely filing.

These authorities collectively guided the Court’s framework: determine whether the sentence is illegal under Brittingham, and if not, apply the stringent Rule 35 time limit absent the Bodnari-style showing.

2. Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning proceeds on two tracks:

1. Statutory Construction of § 4214(a). The statute states that any person who has been 3 times convicted of a felony... faces up to life for a fourth violent felony. The Court treated § 4214(a) as a threshold statute: once three prior felonies are shown, the sentencing court’s jurisdiction to impose an enhanced sentence is complete. Mis-identifying a fourth or fifth predicate is irrelevant so long as the undisputed three exist.
2. Application of Rule 35. Under Rule 35(a), an illegal sentence can be corrected “at any time.” The Court concluded Fulton's sentence was legal, shutting the door on Rule 35(a). Rule 35(b) allows modifications within 90 days unless “extraordinary circumstances” justify delay. Because Fulton actually raised the precise mis-labeling issue in 2016, he could not claim the error was newly discovered or beyond his control. Therefore, no extraordinary circumstances existed.

3. Impact of the Decision

• Predicate-Felony Sufficiency. Prosecutors need not prove exactly the predicates listed in a habitual-offender petition so long as three qualifying felonies ultimately appear in the record. Defense challenges based on clerical mistakes will face an uphill battle.
• Rule 35 Stringency. The judgment narrows “extraordinary circumstances,” tying it to events preventing a timely motion, not mere clerical errors or strategy shifts. Late Rule 35(b) petitions must now show forces external to the defendant (e.g., newly discovered documents, physical incapacity) rather than errors visible in the original record.
• Guidance for Trial Courts. Superior Court judges can rely on Fulton to summarily deny Rule 35 motions grounded in non-material errors, promoting finality and reducing post-sentence litigation.
• Professional Responsibility. The case highlights counsel’s duty to raise all known sentencing issues promptly; post-sentence silence may foreclose relief years later.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Habitual Offender Statute (11 Del. C. § 4214(a))

A Delaware law that allows enhanced penalties—including life imprisonment—when a defendant with three prior felonies commits a fourth violent felony.

Illegal Sentence vs. Sentence Imposed in an Illegal Manner

Illegal sentence: Exceeds statutory maximum, violates double jeopardy, or the court lacked authority—correctable any time.
Imposed in an illegal manner: Procedural error (e.g., wrong information used). Must be challenged within 90 days unless extraordinary circumstances exist.

Extraordinary Circumstances (Rule 35)

Conditions completely beyond the defendant’s control that prevented timely filing—for example, a natural disaster destroying records. Discovery of an obvious clerical error already known to the defendant does not qualify.

Conclusion

Fulton v. State reinforces that Delaware’s habitual-offender regime turns on the existence of any three predicate felonies, not the clerical precision of the State’s petition. The Court’s decisive refusal to deem a 2016-known mis-labeling as “extraordinary” tightens the Rule 35 escape hatch and underscores the importance of timely objections at sentencing. Going forward, defendants must bring formatting or nomenclature errors to the court’s attention within 90 days or risk permanent forfeiture, while the State gains assurance that minor drafting mistakes will not unravel otherwise proper habitual-offender sentences.