Case Title: Dickerson v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 109, 2016

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2016-07-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DAVID H. DICKERSON, 
 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 109, 2016 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID 0811010588 
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: May 16, 2016 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: July 7, 2016 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 7th day of July 2016, 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, David Dickerson, filed this appeal from a Superior 
Court order denying his ninth motion for modification of sentence.  The State has 
filed a motion to affirm the judgment below on the ground that it is manifest on the 
face of Dickerson’s opening brief that his appeal is without merit.  We agree and 
affirm. 
(2) 
A Superior Court jury convicted Dickerson in June 2009 of five 
criminal offenses, including Burglary in the Third Degree and Attempted Burglary 
 
2
in the Third Degree.  The Superior Court sentenced him to a total period of eleven 
years at Level V incarceration, to be suspended after serving nine months in prison 
for one year of Level III probation.  Dickerson did not appeal.  In July 2010, while 
at a work release center, Dickerson left the center on a pass and failed to return.  
He was arrested in New York in November 2010 and extradited to Delaware.  He 
pled guilty to Escape in the Third Degree.  Thereafter, in December 2010, the 
Superior Court found that Dickerson committed a violation of his probation and 
sentenced him to a total period of ten years at Level V incarceration.  Dickerson 
filed an appeal, but later withdrew it voluntarily. 
(3) 
Since that time, he has filed nine unsuccessful motions seeking 
correction or modification of his VOP sentence.  In February 2016, Dickerson filed 
a motion requesting review of his sentence under House Bill 312, which was 
enacted in July 2014 and allows the Superior Court to impose sentences either 
concurrently or consecutively.  
(4) 
On appeal, Dickerson argues that the passage of H.B. 312, combined 
with his numerous accomplishments while in prison, constitutes “extraordinary 
circumstances” under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b).  He argues that the 
Superior Court abused its discretion in denying his motion. 
(5) 
Dickerson’s assertions, however, provide no basis for this Court to 
reverse the Superior Court’s denial of his motion for modification of sentence.  
 
3
Under Superior Court Criminal 35(b), a motion for reduction of sentence must be 
filed within 90 days of sentencing unless the defendant can establish extraordinary 
circumstances.1  Rule 35(b) also provides that the Superior Court will not consider 
repetitive requests for sentence modification.2  This was Dickerson’s ninth motion 
for modification of sentence, and it was filed more than 90 days after he was 
originally sentenced. To the extent Dickerson relies upon H.B. 312 to establish 
extraordinary circumstances, this Court recently held that the amended statute only 
applies prospectively and not retroactively.3  Moreover, good behavior in prison 
does not constitute extraordinary circumstances.4  Accordingly, we find no abuse 
of the Superior Court’s discretion in denying Dickerson’s untimely and repetitive 
motion for modification of sentence. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Justice 
                                                 
1 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b) (2016). 
2 Id. 
3 Fountain v. State, __ A.3d __, 2016 WL 2927750 (Del. May 16, 2016) 
4 State v. Diaz, 2015 WL 1741768, at *2 n.9 (Del. Apr. 15, 2015).