Case Title: Whitaker v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 63, 2011

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2011-04-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
MACHEL A. WHITAKER, 
 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 63, 2011 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID Nos. 0708007312 
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:  March 31, 2011 
 
 
 
 
  Decided:  April 12, 2011 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 12th day of April 2011, upon consideration of the State’s motion to 
remand, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Machel Whitaker, filed this appeal from a Superior 
Court order, which denied Whitaker’s motion to modify his criminal sentence on 
the ground that it was not timely filed.  After Whitaker filed his opening brief on 
appeal, the State filed a motion seeking to remand this matter to the Superior Court 
for consideration of the merits of Whitaker’s motion.  We agree that a remand is 
appropriate.  Accordingly, this matter shall be returned to the Superior Court for 
consideration of the merits of Whitaker’s motion.  Jurisdiction will not be retained. 
 
2
(2) 
The record reflects that Whitaker pled guilty to attempted first degree 
robbery and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony in April 
2008.   The Superior Court sentenced him to a total period of eleven years at Level 
V incarceration to be suspended after serving six years for six months at Level IV 
home confinement followed by one year at Level III probation.  In January 2011, 
Whitaker filed a motion for modification of the partial confinement portion of his 
sentence.  He requested the Superior Court to convert the Level IV home 
confinement portion of his sentence to Level IV Crest Program.  The Superior 
Court denied Whitaker’s motion on the ground that it was untimely and because 
his sentence was appropriate.  
(3) 
In his opening brief on appeal, Whitaker argues that the Superior 
Court erred in denying his motion as untimely because a motion for modification 
of the terms of partial confinement or probation may be filed “at any time.”1 
Laudably, the State concedes that Whitaker’s argument is correct.  Moreover, the 
State points out that there is no transcript of Whitaker’s original sentencing hearing 
in the record and, thus, there is no basis upon which this Court may review the 
Superior Court’s conclusion that Whitaker’s sentence was appropriate.2  The State 
requests that the matter be remanded to the Superior Court for further 
consideration of the merits of Whitaker’s motion.   
                                                 
1 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b) (2011). 
2 Johnson v. State, 2008 WL 187958 (Del. Jan. 9, 2008). 
 
3
(4) 
Under the circumstances, we agree that a remand is appropriate.  
Accordingly, this matter shall be remanded to the Superior Court for further 
consideration of the merits of Whitaker’s motion.  The Superior Court shall issue 
its order within 45 days of this order.  Jurisdiction shall not be retained. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that this matter is hereby 
REMANDED to the Superior Court for further proceedings consistent with this 
order.  Jurisdiction is not retained. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice