Case Title: Winter v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 127, 2018

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2018-07-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
HERMIONE WINTER, 
 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 127, 2018 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID No. 1308015125 (S) 
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: May 21, 2018 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
July 24, 2018 
 
Before VAUGHN, SEITZ, and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
Upon consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the State’s motion 
to affirm, and the appellant’s reply, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Hermione Winter, filed this appeal from the 
Superior Court’s denial of her 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 Winter’s opening brief that her appeal is without merit.  We agree 
and affirm. 
 (2) 
Winter was formerly known as David Allemandi until she legally 
changed her name in December 2017.  In 2014, Winter pled guilty to second 
degree rape and continuous sexual abuse of a child.  The Superior Court 
 
2
sentenced Winter as follows: (i) for continuous sexual abuse of a child, twenty-
five years at Level V incarceration (with credit for 216 days previously served), 
to be suspended after serving five years for twenty years at Level III probation; 
and (ii) for second degree rape, twenty-five years at Level V incarceration, to 
be suspended after serving fifteen years in prison and upon successful 
completion of the Level V Transitions Sex Offender Program for one year at 
Level IV Home Confinement followed by eight years at Level III probation.  
Winter did not file a direct appeal. 
(3) 
Winter identifies as transgender, but she continues to be housed at 
the James T. Vaughn Correctional Center with other male inmates.  Since being 
sentenced, Winter has filed multiple unsuccessful motions seeking 
modification or reduction of her sentence.  In February 2018, Winter filed a 
“Motion for Correction of Sentence,” which asserted that she had been 
transferred within the Vaughn Correctional Center to a building that did not 
offer the Transitions Sex Offender Program.  Winter further asserted that, once 
she completes her sexual reassignment surgery, she will be unable to comply 
with that aspect of the Superior Court’s sentencing order.  She requested the 
Superior Court to “correct my sentence accordingly.”  The Superior Court 
denied Winter’s motion, finding her sentence to be appropriate and noting that 
the Transitions Sex Offender Program is offered at both the Vaughn 
 
3
Correctional Center and the Baylor Women’s Correctional Institution.  Winter 
appeals that ruling.   
(4) 
On appeal, Winter contends that she is severely mentally ill and 
currently is housed with other mentally ill male inmates in a building where she 
is unable to participate in the court-ordered program.  Winter asserts that she 
requested the Department of Correction (“DOC”) to transfer her to a female 
facility, but her request was denied.  She requests that this Court either order 
the DOC to transfer her to a female facility or correct her sentence to remove 
the requirement of the Transitions Sex Offender Program. 
(5) 
In its motion to affirm, the State asserts that Winter’s motion 
below, notwithstanding its title, sought a modification of her sentence under 
Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b) and was properly denied because it was 
not filed within 90 days of her sentencing.1  The State asserts that Winter did 
not establish “extraordinary circumstances” to warrant consideration of her 
untimely motion2 because she offered no evidence that she will be unable to 
complete the program within the fifteen years remaining on her sentence.  
Moreover, the State contends that, because Winter did not request below that 
                                                 
1 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b).  
2 State v. Culp, 152 A.3d 141, 146 (Del. 2016) (untimely motions under Rule 35(b) may only 
be considered in extraordinary circumstances. 
 
4
the Superior Court order her transfer to a female facility, this Court cannot 
consider that request on appeal.3    
(6) 
We agree with the State’s position.  Given the remaining length of 
Winter’s sentence, we find no abuse of the Superior Court’s discretion in 
denying her motion for modification of sentence.  Although Winter may not 
currently be able to participate in the Transitions Program because of where 
she is housed, there are fifteen years remaining on her sentence during which 
the DOC can make the program available to her.  Thus, we conclude there are 
no extraordinary circumstances to justify a sentence modification to eliminate 
completion of the Transitions Sex Offender Program as a requirement from 
Winter’s sentence.  To the extent that Winter asks this Court to transfer her to 
a different facility, we will not consider this newly-raised request for the first 
time on appeal. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                                 
3 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 8.