Priest v. State

Summary

The Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed the denial of Kevin Priest's motion concerning his habitual-offender sentences. It held that the filing was properly treated as a motion to correct sentence under Rule 35 rather than as an amendment to pending Rule 61 motions, and that the sentence was not illegal because it was imposed under Delaware's habitual-offender statute rather than the federal residual clause addressed in Johnson. The court also held that Priest's drug-retesting and evidentiary-hearing claims could not be pursued pro se while counsel represented him and had to be raised in the underlying cases.