Case Title: Wisher v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 343, 2021

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2022-03-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DEVANTE WISHER, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 343, 2021 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below–Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§   
§  Crim. ID Nos. 1907010092 (N) 
§                          1907015856 (N) 
§ 
 
 
Submitted: December 30, 2021 
   Decided: March 8, 2022 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices. 
 
 
ORDER 
 
After careful consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the State’s motion 
to affirm, and the record on appeal, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Devante Wisher, appeals the Superior Court’s denial of 
his 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 Wisher’s opening 
brief that his appeal is without merit.  We agree and affirm. 
(2) 
On December 17, 2020, Wisher resolved two sets of criminal charges 
by pleading guilty to one count of first-degree assault, one count of possession of a 
firearm during the commission of a felony (“PFDCF”), and one count of attempted 
carjacking.  In exchange for his plea, the State dismissed the remaining charges in 
 
 
2 
 
the indictments and agreed to cap its sentencing recommendation at ten years of 
unsuspended Level V incarceration.  Following a presentence investigation, the 
Superior Court sentenced Wisher as follows: for first-degree assault, to twenty-five 
years of Level V incarceration, suspended after four years for decreasing levels of 
supervision; for PFDCF, to three years of Level V incarceration; and for attempted 
carjacking, to five years of Level V incarceration, suspended after two years for two 
years of Level III probation. Wisher did not appeal his convictions or sentence. 
(3) 
On June 17, 2021, Wisher filed a timely motion for sentence 
modification under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b).  Wisher asked the court to 
modify his sentence by reducing his sentence for first-degree assault from four years 
to two years and including a requirement that Wisher complete the Road-to-
Recovery program.  On September 29, 2021, the Superior Court denied Wisher’s 
motion, finding that the court had given due consideration to Wisher’s age, 
upbringing, and family circumstances at the time of sentencing and that Wisher’s 
motion did not present any additional information that had not been previously 
considered by the court when it fashioned his sentence.  This appeal followed. 
(4) 
On appeal, Wisher argues that the Superior Court erred when it denied 
his motion for sentence modification because he can complete the special treatment 
and educational programming available to him while he is incarcerated within seven, 
as opposed to nine, years.  We find no merit to Wisher’s argument. 
 
 
3 
 
(5) 
We review the Superior Court’s denial of a Rule 35(b) motion for abuse 
of discretion.1  Under this “highly deferential” standard, the test is whether “the trial 
court acted within a zone of reasonableness or stayed within a range of choice.”2  We 
find no abuse of discretion here.  The Superior Court carefully considered the merits 
of Wisher’s motion and concluded that it remained satisfied with Wisher’s sentence 
(an aggregate of nine years of unsuspended Level V incarceration, notably one year 
less of unsuspended Level V incarceration than the State sought under the plea 
agreement).  And, as the Superior Court observed, Wisher’s sentence does not 
preclude him from participating in the Road-to-Recovery program. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is 
GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
 
 
Justice 
 
1 Benge v. State, 101 A.3d 973, 976-77 (Del. 2014). 
2 Id. at 977 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).