Case Title: Vander Hoeven v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 533, 2001

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2002-05-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
JAMES VANDER HOEVEN IV,
§
§
No.  533, 2001
Defendant Below,
§
Appellant,
§
Court Below–Superior Court
§
of the State of Delaware, in 
v.
§
and for Sussex County in 
§
VS97-06-0630-01, 0635-01.
STATE OF DELAWARE,
§
§
Plaintiff Below,
§
Appellee.
§
Def.  ID No.  9706012224
Submitted: February 14, 2002
Decided:
May 10, 2002
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and STEELE, Justices.
O R D E R
This 10th day of May 2002, upon consideration of the appellant’s
opening brief and the appellee’s motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme Court
Rule 25(a), it appears to the Court that:
(1)
The appellant, James Vander Hoeven IV, filed this appeal from
the Superior Court’s order of September 28, 2001, that denied his motion for
modification of sentence pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b).
The State of Delaware has moved to affirm the judgment of the Superior
Court on the basis that it is manifest on the face of Vander Hoeven’s opening
1It appears from the Superior Court docket that Vander Hoeven’s most recent
motion for modification was filed in October 2001.
2
brief that the appeal is without merit.  We find no merit to the appeal.
Accordingly, we affirm.
(2)
In December 1997, Vander Hoeven pleaded guilty, pursuant to
Superior Court Criminal Rule 11(e)(1)(c), to Burglary in the Second Degree
and Criminal Contempt of a Domestic Violence Protective Order.  Vander
Hoeven was sentenced to a total of nine years at Level V, suspended for three
years of probation.
(3)
In November 1998, Vander Hoeven was found guilty of violating
his probation.  He was sentenced in March 1999 to nine years at Level V,
suspended after 42 months and completion of the Key Program, for one year
at a Level IV residential substance abuse treatment program, suspended after
successful completion of the program, for four years at Level III.
(4)
Since his March 1999 sentencing, Vander Hoeven has filed
numerous unsuccessful motions to reduce, correct and/or modify his
sentence.1  In November and December 2000, Vander Hoeven filed
modification motions claiming that the Key Program was not appropriate for
2State v.  Vander Hoeven, Del.  Super., No.  9706012224, Graves, J.  (Nov.  20,
2000); State v.  Vander Hoeven, Del.  Super., No.  9706012224, Graves, J.  (Dec.  7,
2000).
3Vander Hoeven stated that he had been assaulted and seriously injured by two
inmates, that his daughter had been raped, and that one of the rapists was enrolled in the
Key Program with him.
3
him because he does not have a drug and alcohol problem.  The Superior
Court denied Vander Hoeven’s motions.2  Vander Hoeven did not appeal.  
(5)
On September 27, 2001, Vander Hoeven again moved for
modification of his sentence.  Claiming personal and family hardship,3 Vander
Hoeven requested that the Superior Court remove the Key Program from his
sentence so that he could begin the Level IV Crest Program immediately after
serving 42 months at Level V.  By order dated September 28, 2001, the
Superior Court denied Vander Hoeven’s motion on the basis that the sentence
imposed was appropriate, and that Vander Hoeven should complete the Key
Program.
(6)
In his opening brief on appeal, Vander Hoeven appears to revert
to his previously adjudicated argument that the Key and Crest Programs are
“counterproductive” to him because he does not have a drug and alcohol
problem.  Vander Hoeven’s appeal is without merit.
4
(7)
Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b) provides that the court will
not consider repetitive requests for relief and will not consider an application
made more than 90 days after the imposition of sentence except in
“extraordinary circumstances.”  In this case, it is clear that Vander Hoeven’s
motion for modification of sentence was both repetitive and beyond the 90-day
time limit of Rule 35(b).  Vander Hoeven has not established the existence of
“extraordinary circumstances” that would justify consideration of the motion
beyond the 90-day time limit for filing the motion.  The Superior Court’s
denial of Vander Hoeven’s motion for modification of sentence was not an
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/ E. Norman Veasey
Chief Justice