(a) If at the time of sentence, it appears to the court that the conviction of a defendant constitutes a second or other conviction making the defendant liable to a punishment greater than the maximum which may be imposed upon a person not so previously convicted, the court shall fully inform the defendant as to such previous conviction or convictions and shall call upon the defendant to admit or deny such previous conviction or convictions. If the defendant shall admit the previous conviction or convictions, the court may impose the greater punishment. If the defendant shall stand silent or if the defendant shall deny the prior conviction or convictions, the defendant shall be tried upon the issue of previous conviction; provided, however, that the foregoing procedure shall not apply in cases of fourth offenders liable to sentence of life imprisonment under § 4214 of this title.
(b) If, at any time after conviction and before sentence, it shall appear to the Attorney General or to the Superior Court that, by reason of such conviction and prior convictions, a defendant should be subjected to § 4214 of this title, the Attorney General shall file a motion to have the defendant declared an habitual criminal under § 4214 of this title. If it shall appear to the satisfaction of the Court at a hearing on the motion that the defendant falls within § 4214 of this title, the Court shall enter an order declaring the defendant an habitual criminal and shall impose sentence accordingly.
11 Del. C. 1953,
§
4214;
58 Del. Laws, c. 497,
§
2;
70 Del. Laws, c. 186,
§
1;
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
13
cases (
6 in the last 5 years), 2015–2025 · leading case:
State v. Ortiz (Del. Super. Ct. 2023).
State v. Ortiz (Del. Super. Ct. 2023).
· cites it 3× “46 44 11 Del. C. § 4215. 45 Tr. Sentencing Hr’g.”
Burton v. State (Del. 2024).
· cites it 3× “10 Burton also cites to Superior Court Criminal Rule 32(a)(3), but this subsection merely refers back to the requirement under 11 Del. C. § 4215 to file a written motion.”
State v. Ortiz (Del. Super. Ct. 2025).
· cites it 3× “16 11 Del. C. § 4215. 17 Tr. Sentencing Hr’g.”
Allison v. State (Del. 2016).
· cites it 2× “Under 11 Del. C. § 4215(b), “[i]f it shall appear to the satisfaction of the [Superior] Court at a hearing on the [habitual offender] motion that the defendant falls within § 4214 of this title, the [Superior] Court shall enter an order declaring the defendant an habitual…”
State v. Melendez (Del. Super. Ct. 2024).
· cites it 2× “”31 (10) Melendez argues that pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 4215(a) he should have been able to admit or deny his previous convictions before the Court considered them in sentencing.”
Hall v. State (Del. 2016).
“”2 Although 2 11 Del. C. § 4215(b) (2007). 3 the State filed its habitual offender motion on the same day as sentencing, the motion was filed “before sentence” under Section 4215(b).”
Stevenson v. State (Del. 2016).
“The State has discretion whether to seek sentencing under § 4214.”
State v. Mack (Del. Super. Ct. 2020).
“3 See 11 Del. C. § 4215. 4 Mack, 2019 WL 7342514 , at *1.”
Dickinson v. State (Del. 2022).
“12, 2022) (“[T]he record reflects that the sentencing proceedings complied with 11 Del. C. § 4215: the State filed a motion to have Dickinson declared a habitual offender prior to the sentencing hearing; the Superior Court called upon Dickinson to admit or deny his previous…”
State v. Nurse (Del. Super. Ct. 2025).
“17 2024 WL 1005567 , at *2-3 (modifying one count of defendant’s sentence because the indictment did not give requisite notice but denying defendant’s argument to modify the rest of the charges under 11 Del. C. § 4215(a)).”
Guinn v. State (Del. 2015).
“previous conviction at sentencing as required by 11 Del. C. § 4215(a). The transcript of Guinn’s sentencing does not reflect that any of the parties disputed that Guinn had a previous PWITD conviction and Guinn does not claim that he lacked a previous PWITD conviction.”
Courtney v. State (Del. 2015).
“June 9, 2015) (holding defendant who claimed enhanced sentence was illegal because the Superior Court did not ask him to admit or deny previous conviction as required by 11 Del. C. § 4215(a) was contending that sentence was imposed in illegal manner); McLeaf v.”
— 11 Del. C. § 4215(a) — 6 cases
State v. Ortiz (Del. Super. Ct. 2023).
“46 44 11 Del. C. § 4215. 45 Tr. Sentencing Hr’g.”
State v. Melendez (Del. Super. Ct. 2024).
“”31 (10) Melendez argues that pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 4215(a) he should have been able to admit or deny his previous convictions before the Court considered them in sentencing.”
State v. Ortiz (Del. Super. Ct. 2025).
“16 11 Del. C. § 4215. 17 Tr. Sentencing Hr’g.”
State v. Nurse (Del. Super. Ct. 2025).
“17 2024 WL 1005567 , at *2-3 (modifying one count of defendant’s sentence because the indictment did not give requisite notice but denying defendant’s argument to modify the rest of the charges under 11 Del. C. § 4215(a)).”
Guinn v. State (Del. 2015).
“previous conviction at sentencing as required by 11 Del. C. § 4215(a). The transcript of Guinn’s sentencing does not reflect that any of the parties disputed that Guinn had a previous PWITD conviction and Guinn does not claim that he lacked a previous PWITD conviction.”
— 11 Del. C. § 4215(b) — 5 cases
Allison v. State (Del. 2016).
“Under 11 Del. C. § 4215(b), “[i]f it shall appear to the satisfaction of the [Superior] Court at a hearing on the [habitual offender] motion that the defendant falls within § 4214 of this title, the [Superior] Court shall enter an order declaring the defendant an habitual…”
Hall v. State (Del. 2016).
“”2 Although 2 11 Del. C. § 4215(b) (2007). 3 the State filed its habitual offender motion on the same day as sentencing, the motion was filed “before sentence” under Section 4215(b).”
Stevenson v. State (Del. 2016).
“The State has discretion whether to seek sentencing under § 4214.”
Burton v. State (Del. 2024).
“10 Burton also cites to Superior Court Criminal Rule 32(a)(3), but this subsection merely refers back to the requirement under 11 Del. C. § 4215 to file a written motion.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.