Case Title: Stover v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 95, 2018

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2018-07-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
STEVEN STOVER, 
 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 95, 2018 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID No. 110921919 (K) 
§ 
§ 
  
 
 
 
 
Submitted: May 4, 2018 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
July 3, 2018 
 
Before VAUGHN, SEITZ, and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
 
ORDER 
 
This 3rd day of July 2018, upon consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, 
the State’s motion to affirm, and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Steven Stover, filed this appeal from the Superior 
Court’s denial of his motion for sentence modification under Superior Court 
Criminal Rule 35(b).  The State of Delaware has filed a motion to affirm the 
judgment below on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Stover’s opening 
brief that his appeal is without merit.  We agree and affirm.   
(2) 
On October 25, 2012, Stover pled guilty to Rape in the First Degree and 
Rape in the Second Degree.  Stover was sentenced to a total of thirty-five years of 
 
2
non-suspended, mandatory Level V incarceration, followed by eighteen months of 
Level II probation.  Stover did not file a direct appeal.   
(3) 
On December 6, 2017, Stover filed a motion for sentence modification.  
The Superior Court denied the motion.  This appeal followed.  The Superior Court 
denied Stover’s motion for the preparation of his plea colloquy and sentencing 
transcript at State expense. 
(4) 
We review the Superior Court’s denial of a motion for reduction of 
sentence for abuse of discretion, although questions of law are reviewed de novo.1  
The Superior Court may suspend costs or fines at any time.2  On appeal, Stover 
argues, as he did below, that the Superior Court should suspend the Kent County 
Sheriff charge imposed in his sentence because the Kent County Sheriff’s Office has 
not responded to his inquiry regarding the charge.  He also argues that the Superior 
Court erred in denying his motion for a transcript at State expense.  
(5) 
  The Superior Court did not err in denying Stover’s motion for sentence 
modification and motion for a transcript at State expense.  Stover provided no 
information to merit a sentence modification.  The Kent County Sheriff’s alleged 
failure to respond to Stover’s inquiry regarding the charge in his sentence does not 
constitute a basis for suspension of the Kent County Sheriff’s charge.   
                                                 
1 State v. Culp, 152 A.3d 141, 144 (Del. 2016). 
2 Super. Ct. Crim. 35(b). 
 
3
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that motion to affirm is GRANTED 
and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice