Case Title: Woods v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 68, 2003

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2003-04-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
DONALD L. WOODS,
Defendant Below-
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF DELAWARE,
Plaintiff Below-
Appellee.
§
§
§  No. 68, 2003
§
§
§  Court Below—Superior Court
§  of the State of Delaware,
§  in and for New Castle County
§  Cr. ID. No. 9410012388
§
§
Submitted: March 5, 2003
  Decided:   April 8, 2003
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and STEELE, Justices 
O R D E R
This 8th day of April 2003, upon consideration of the appellant’s
opening brief on appeal and the appellee’s motion to affirm pursuant to
Supreme Court Rule 25(a), it appears to the Court that:
(1)
The defendant-appellant, Donald L. Woods, filed an appeal from
the Superior Court’s January 14, 2003 order denying his motion for
modification of sentence.  The plaintiff-appellee, the State of Delaware, has
moved to affirm the judgment of the Superior Court on the ground that it is
manifest on the face of Woods’ opening brief that the appeal is without merit.
We agree and AFFIRM.
1DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 4217(c).
2DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 4217(f).
-2-
(2)
In February 1995, Woods was found guilty by a Superior Court
jury of Possession with Intent to Deliver Cocaine, Possession of Cocaine
Within 1000 Feet of a School, Possession of Heroin, Criminal Trespass in the
Third Degree and Resisting Arrest.  He was sentenced to 20 years incarceration
at Level V, to be suspended after 10 years for decreasing levels of probation.
Woods has since filed numerous motions to reduce or modify his sentence.  
(3)
In this appeal, Woods claims that the Superior Court abused its
discretion by denying his latest motion for sentence modification.  He contends
that the Superior Court improperly considered his motion under Superior Court
Criminal Rule 35(b) rather than DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 4217.  He further
contends that he is entitled to a sentence modification under the statute because
he has demonstrated “exceptional rehabilitation”1 and “has served at least one-
half of the originally imposed Level V sentence.”2
(4)
Woods’ claim is without merit.  Even if Woods had served half of
the 20-year Level V sentence originally imposed by the Superior Court, under
the statute it is within the sole discretion of the Department of Correction (the
“Department”) to apply for a modification of Woods’ sentence in the first
3DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 4217(b).
4If the Department decides to initiate the process, it first files an application with the
Board of Parole and, if the Board of Parole recommends a sentence modification, the
Department then submits the application to the Superior Court.  DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, §
4217(d).
5Ketchum v. State, Del. Supr., No. 631, 2001, Berger, J. (June 10, 2002).
6SUPER. CT. CRIM. R. 35(b).
-3-
instance.3  The Department has not chosen to initiate the application process on
Woods’ behalf.4
(5)
Because the Department has not initiated the application process,
the Superior Court had no choice but to consider Woods’ motion for sentence
modification pursuant to Rule 35(b).5  There was no abuse of discretion on the
part of the Superior Court in denying Woods’ motion since there were no
extraordinary circumstances excusing the 90-day time limit and the motion was
repetitive.6 
(6) 
It is manifest on the face of Woods’ opening brief that this appeal
is without merit because the issues presented on appeal are controlled by settled
Delaware law and, to the extent that judicial discretion is implicated, clearly
there was no abuse of discretion.
-4-
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Supreme Court
Rule 25(a), the State of Delaware’s motion to affirm is GRANTED.  The
judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Carolyn Berger
Justice