Case Title: Allen v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 599, 2006

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2007-05-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ROMONE ALLEN, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 599, 2006 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Kent County 
§  Cr. ID Nos. 0210002564 
§  and 0208022502 
§   
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: March 26, 2007 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: May 25, 2007 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 25th day of May 2007, 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 defendant-appellant, Romone Allen, filed this appeal from 
the Superior Court’s order granting in part and denying in part 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 Allen’s 
opening brief that the appeal is without merit.  We agree and affirm.   
(2) 
The record reflects that Allen pled guilty in March 2003 to six 
drug-related offenses that were charged under two separate indictments.  The 
 
2 
Superior Court immediately sentenced Allen to a total period of fifteen years 
at Level V incarceration, to be suspended after serving ten years for one year 
at Level IV Crest, to be suspended upon successful completion of Crest for 
decreasing levels of supervision.  The sentence imposed reflected 
substantially the sentence recommended in Allen’s plea agreement except 
that, instead of one year at Level IV Crest, the plea agreement recommended 
six months at Level IV Crest followed by six months at Level IV Home 
Confinement. 
(3) 
Allen did not appeal, although he did file a motion for reduction 
of sentence in May 2003, which the Superior Court denied.  In May 2006, 
Allen, acting pro se, filed a second motion for modification of sentence.  
Prior to the Superior Court’s decision on the motion, counsel entered an 
appearance on Allen’s behalf and requested the pro se motion be withdrawn.  
Thereafter, counsel filed a motion for modification of Allen’s sentence.  The 
motion requested that, given Allen’s “significant strides in completing drug 
and education programs,” the Superior Court’s 2003 sentencing order be 
modified: (i) to remove the Level IV Crest Program requirement and 
substitute Level IV Home Confinement or Work Release; and (ii) to reduce 
the ten-year Level V incarceration period to five years, followed by a total 
period of three years at decreasing levels of supervision. The Superior Court 
 
3 
granted the motion in part by substituting Level IV Home Confinement or 
Work Release for the Crest Program requirement.  The motion was denied in 
all other respects.  This appeal followed. 
(4) 
While it is not entirely clear, Allen appears to argue in his pro 
se opening brief on appeal that his sentence should be modified because the 
State impermissibly recommended an “enhanced” sentence based on Allen’s 
alleged failure to perform a promise that was not contained in the plea 
agreement.  Allen also appears to argue that the State was required to 
establish on the record why it was recommending a sentence that was greater 
than the recommendation contained in a prior TASC evaluation. Neither of 
these issues was raised in the Superior Court in the first instance.  
Accordingly, this Court will not consider them for the first time on appeal.1 
(5) 
After reviewing Allen’s motion for modification of sentence 
and the Superior Court’s judgment, we find no abuse of discretion in the 
Superior Court’s denial of the reduction of Allen’s Level V sentence based 
on his rehabilitative efforts.  Although commendable, Allen’s prison record 
is not sufficient to establish “extraordinary circumstances” under Superior 
Court Criminal Rule 35(b)2 and thus excuse Allen’s failure to comply with 
                                                          
 
1 See Del. Supr. Ct. R. 8 (2007). 
2 Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b) provides in part:  “The court may reduce a 
sentence of imprisonment on a motion made within 90 days after the sentence is 
 
4 
the 90-day limitations period of Rule 35(b).3  The only other exception to the 
time limitation of Rule 35(b) is the procedure set forth DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 
11, § 4217, which permits the Department of Correction to apply for an 
offender’s sentence modification based on “exceptional rehabilitation.”  The 
Department of Correction has not submitted such an application.  
Accordingly, we find that the judgment below denying Allen’s motion for 
sentence reduction should be affirmed.  
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State's motion to 
affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 /s/ Carolyn Berger_______________ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                                                                                                                                                             
imposed….The court will consider an application made more than 90 days after the 
imposition of sentence only in extraordinary circumstances or pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 
4217.” 
3 See Ketchum v. State, 2002 WL 1290900 (Del. Supr.).