Case Title: Kindle v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 45, 2010

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2010-12-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JEFFREY KINDLE, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 45, 2010 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr. ID Nos. 9908027503; 
§  9912012693; 0004004115; 
§  0103020294; 0108016817 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: September 24, 2010 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: December 2, 2010 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This  2nd day of December 2010, upon consideration of the parties’ 
briefs and the record on appeal, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The appellant, Jeffrey Kindle, filed this appeal from the 
Superior Court’s denial of his motion for modification of sentence.  After 
careful review, we find no merit to Kindle’s appeal.  Accordingly, we affirm 
the Superior Court’s judgment. 
 
(2) 
The record reflects that, on October 2, 2009, the Superior Court 
found Kindle in violation of his probation associated with five different 
criminal actions.  After ordering a presentence investigation, the Superior 
Court sentenced Kindle to a total of twenty years at Level V incarceration, to 
 
2
be suspended after serving eight years in prison for two years at decreasing 
levels of supervision.  His probation was discharged as unimproved with 
respect to several of his prior sentences.  The court further ordered mental 
health and substance abuse evaluations and required Kindle to comply with 
all recommendations for counseling and treatment.  Kindle did not appeal 
from his VOP sentence.   
 
(3) 
Instead, on December 14, 2009, Kindle filed a motion  
requesting the Superior Court to modify his VOP sentence.  Kindle asserted 
two grounds for modification.  First, he contended that the Superior Court’s 
sentence failed to provide for “transitional re-entry treatment.”  Second, he 
argued that his VOP sentence failed to provide for mental health treatment.   
Kindle requested the Superior Court to modify his sentence to provide for a 
“treatment-oriented term of incarceration, suspended after satisfactory 
completion of Level 5 rehabilitative and mental health programing [sic] to 
be followed by a transitional step down to Level 4….”   The Superior Court 
denied the motion, noting that Kindle had provided no additional 
information to warrant a modification of his VOP sentence.  This appeal 
followed.  
 
(4) 
Kindle raises six issues in his opening brief on appeal.  First, he 
contends that his VOP sentence should be modified because the Superior 
 
3
Court judge sentenced him with a closed mind.  Second, he argues that the 
judge improperly relied upon an unqualified expert in making medical 
judgments with respect to his VOP sentence. Third, he asserts that his VOP 
sentence should be modified because the sentencing judge erred in not 
having a mental health evaluation performed.  Fourth, Kindle argues that the 
VOP proceedings violated his constitutional rights because he was not 
permitted to obtain a mental health expert to testify on his behalf.  Fifth, he 
asserts that this VOP sentence was excessive.  Finally, he argues that his 
mental illness was directly related to his recidivism and was not properly 
addressed by the Superior Court. 
 
(5) 
Kindle failed to raise any of these issues in the Superior Court 
on his sentence modification motion.  Accordingly, his claims are barred 
unless consideration is warranted in the interests of justice.1  We do not find 
consideration of these newly-raised claims to be warranted.  The Superior 
Court’s VOP sentence was well within the statutory limits.2  Moreover, the 
Superior Court clearly considered Kindle’s need for mental health treatment 
and specifically ordered that a mental health evaluation be performed and 
that all recommendations for treatment be followed.  Accordingly, we find 
                                                 
1 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 8 (2010). 
2 See Ward v. State, 567 A.2d 1296, 1297 (Del. 1989) (holding that appellate review of a 
sentence generally ends upon the determination that the sentence is within legislative 
limits). 
 
4
no abuse of the Superior Court’s discretion in denying Kindle’s motion for 
sentence modification.3   
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                                 
3 Shy v. State, 246 A.2d 926, 927 (Del. 1968) (Supreme Court reviews the denial of a 
sentence modification motion for abuse of discretion).