Knox v. State

Summary

The Court affirmed the denial of Knox’s Rule 35 motion because his challenges either fell outside Rule 35 or were untimely and unsupported. The Court held that the federal rule announced in Tapia did not establish that Knox’s Delaware sentence was illegal, that his challenge to his absence from part of sentencing did not satisfy the extraordinary-circumstances requirement, and that deviation from SENTAC guidelines did not make an otherwise authorized sentence appealable. The Court also held that claims not argued in Knox’s opening brief were waived.