Victor Fairley v. State - Habitual Offender Erlinger Claim

DE Superior Court Opinions

Filed April 1st, 2026

Detected April 2nd, 2026

Summary

Delaware Superior Court denied Victor Fairley's Rule 35(a) motion challenging his habitual offender sentence under Erlinger v. United States (2024). The court found Fairley's prior convictions were established through Shepard documents (indictments, plea agreements, sentencing orders) rather than the 'different occasions inquiry' at issue in Erlinger. The court lifted its previous stay on Erlinger claims for cases whose resolution is clear from developing case law.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

On April 1, 2026, the Delaware Superior Court lifted its stay on Erlinger claims and denied defendant Victor Fairley's motion for relief from his habitual offender sentence. Fairley, convicted of Racketeering and Drug Dealing Tier 4 (heroin), faced enhanced sentencing under 11 Del. C. §4214(b) based on six prior convictions (Possession of Deadly Weapon, PWID, Drug Dealing, Conspiracy 2nd Degree, and related offenses). The court held that Erlinger does not extend relief because the State's habitual offender motion relied exclusively on Shepard documents—indictments, plea agreements, docket entries, and sentencing orders—not the disputed sentencing enhancements addressed in the Supreme Court's decision.

The practical effect: defendants with Erlinger claims based solely on Shepard documents should not expect relief. The court noted that many Erlinger claims are now ripe for resolution as case law develops. Fairley's motion was denied and his sentence stands. Other inmates with similar claims should consult counsel regarding whether their cases involve Shepard documents or the 'different occasions inquiry' that formed the basis of Erlinger relief.

Source document (simplified)

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE, ) ) ) I.D. No. 1809000335

) ) ) VICTOR FAIRLEY, ) ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER This 1 day of April 2026, the Court enters the following Order: st ORDER LIFTING STAY

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 This was but one of a barrage of “Erlinger claims” in Erlinger v. United States. 1

from inmates at the Department of Correction 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

1 Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024).

treatment of Erlinger claims, many are now ripe for resolution and the Court therefore enters this Order lifting the stay in those cases whose resolution is clear from the developing case law. ORDER ON THE MERITS

Victor Fairley was one of over twenty individuals arrested and charged in connection with a drug investigation that utilized wiretaps. Due to his criminal 2

history, he was subject to sentencing as a habitual offender. The wiretap was subject to a motion to suppress, which was denied by the Court after a hearing. 3

After the usual pretrial proceedings, Fairley pled guilty to 1)
Racketeering, a Class B felony carrying from two to twenty-five years in prison and
Drug Dealing Tier 4 (heroin) also a Class B felony. The State agreed to “cap” 4
its sentencing recommendation at twenty years. The Defendant further added that 5

he Agrees he is eligible to be sentenced as a Habitual Offender under 11

Del. C. §4214(b) due to the following prior convictions: Possession of

a Deadly Weapon by a Person Prohibited (2005); PWID (2007); Poss w/in 1000 feet of a school (2009); Drug Dealing Tier 2 (2013); Poss of

2 State v. Fairley, Superior Court Criminal Docket, ID No. 1809000335, Docket Item

(hereinafter “D.I. _”) 6.

3 D.I. 26, 31. 4 D.I. 33. 5 Id.

a Firearm by a Person Prohibited (2013); Conspiracy 2 Degree nd (2013). 6

5F4. Defendant and his attorney signed the Plea Agreement as well as the

Truth in Sentencing Guilty Plea Form, in which he agreed that the sentence he faced included a possible life sentence as a habitual offender on the Racketeering count. 7

The State thereafter filed the habitual offender motion, setting forth as exhibits the detailed sequencing of offense, arrest, conviction, sentencing, and new None of these documents offense needed to satisfy the habitual offender statute. 8

call into question any of the ambiguities of a “different occasions inquiry” required under the federal Armed Career Criminal Act as examined in Erlinger. Rather, the State’s habitual offender motion consisted of indictments, plea agreements, docket entries, and sentencing orders – the type of documents referred to by the Erlinger Court as “Shepard documents.” “[A] sentencing judge may use the information he 9

gleans from Shepard documents for the ‘limited function’ of determining the fact of a prior conviction and the then-existing elements of that offense.” 10

The Defendant did not – and has never – controverted any allegation of the habitual motion, thus suggesting that had a jury been empaneled to consider the

6 Id. 7 Id. 8 D.I. 34. 9Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821, 823 (2024). See Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13

(2005).

10 Erlinger, 602 U.S. at 839 (citing Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254, 260 (2013)).

motion, the Defendant would have had no factual issue to put to the jury. His case thus falls in line with the class of cases to which Erlinger does not extend relief. Defendant freely admitted his prior record subjected him to the enhanced sentencing provisions of the habitual offender act. His motion therefore must be DENIED and his motion for appointment of counsel is MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Charles E. Butler Charles. E. Butler, Resident Judge cc: Prothonotary Victor Fairley (SBI # 00438197) Cynthia Hurlock, Deputy Attorney General