Case Title: Sewell v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 615, 2002

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2003-03-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
JEREMIAH L.  SEWELL,
§
§
No.  615, 2002
Defendant Below,
§
Appellant,
§
Court Below–Superior Court 
§
of the State of Delaware, in 
v.
§
and for Sussex County in
§
Cr.  ID Nos.  9801013800
STATE OF DELAWARE,
§
& 9808007468.
§
Plaintiff Below,
§
Appellee.
§
Submitted: January 3, 2003
Decided:
March 6, 2003
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and HOLLAND, Justices.
O R D E R
This 6th day of March 2003, upon consideration of the appellant’s
opening brief and appendix and the appellee’s motion to affirm pursuant to
Supreme Court Rule 25(a), it appears to the Court that:
(1)
In May 1998, the appellant, Jeremiah L.  Sewell, pled guilty to a
charge of Riot and was sentenced to three years at Level V imprisonment,
suspended for one year at Level III probation, followed by one year at Level II
probation.  In February 1999, Sewell pled guilty to a charge of Burglary in the
Second Degree and was sentenced to three years at Level V imprisonment,
suspended upon successful completion of Boot Camp for probation.  Sewell
1Sewell v.  State, 2002 WL 651271 (Del.  Supr.).
2
was found to have violated his Riot probation on four occasions: March 25,
1999, June 25, 1999, May 2, 2001, and November 2, 2001.  Sewell was found
to have violated his Burglary in the Second Degree probation on two occasions:
May 2, 2001, and November 2, 2001.  
(2)
On December 7, 2001, Sewell was found guilty of having violated
his two probations and was sentenced to a total of five years and six months at
Level V.  On appeal, this Court affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment.1  On
July 11, 2002, the Superior Court modified Sewell’s sentence to reflect credit
for time served, resulting in a total sentence of four years and six months to be
served at Level V.
(3)
On October 22, 2002, Sewell moved to modify his sentence,
pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b).  In his October 2002 motion,
Sewell requested that the Superior Court modify his sentence (i) to incorporate
the Greentree Treatment Program and (ii) to consider moving him to a
residential drug treatment program that would allow Sewell to have access to
his ailing mother and new baby.  Sewell also requested that his sentence be
credited for time he spent at Level V in the Key Program.  The Superior Court
denied Sewell’s motion on October 24, 2002.  This appeal followed. 
2Supr.  Ct.  R.  8; Trump v.  State, 753 A.2d 963, 971 (Del.  2000) (citing
Wainwright v State, 504 A.2d 1096, 1100) (1986)).
3Somerville v.  State, 703 A.2d 629, 631 (1997).
4Tatem v.  State, 787 A.2d 80, 81 (Del.  2001).
3
(4)
On appeal from the denial of his Rule 35(b) motion, Sewell argues,
pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a), that his sentence is illegal
because the Superior Court erred when it  revoked Sewell’s probation for the
burglary offense before he had begun serving that sentence.  Because Sewell
did not present this claim to the Superior Court in his Rule 35(b) motion, the
claim will be considered only for plain error.2  On the other hand, because
Sewell has chosen not to brief his Rule 35(b) claims, those claims are deemed
waived and abandoned and will not be considered on appeal.3 
(5)
“Relief under [Superior Court Criminal] Rule 35(a) is available
‘when the sentence imposed exceeds the statutorily-imposed limits, [or]
violates the Double Jeopardy Clause . . . .’”4 In this case, Sewell cannot
demonstrate any plain error in the revocation of the unexecuted portion of his
probationary sentence.  Under title 11, section 4333 of the Delaware Code, the
Superior Court has broad authority to terminate probationary sentences “at any
5Williams v.  State, 560 A.2d 1012, 1015 (Del.  1989).
6Cornish v.  State, 1998 WL 382641 (Del.  Supr.) (citing Williams v.  State, 560
A.2d 1012, 1013 (1989)).
4
time.”5  “This Court has interpreted [section 4333] to mean that the Superior
Court may revoke a grant of probation prior to its actual commencement.”6
(6)
It is manifest on the face of Sewell’s opening brief that this appeal
is without merit.  The issues raised are clearly controlled by settled Delaware
law, and to the extent the issues on appeal implicate the exercise of judicial
discretion, there was no abuse of discretion.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to affirm
is GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
   s/Joseph T. Walsh   
       Justice