Case Title: Abraham v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 542, 2011

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2012-04-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
KENNETH ABRAHAM, 
 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 542, 2011 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Kent County 
§  Cr. ID 0705004852 
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: March 6, 2012 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: April 3, 2012 
 
Before HOLLAND, Chief Justice, BERGER, and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 3rd day of April 2012, upon consideration of appellant’s opening 
brief and the State’s motion to affirm, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Kenneth Abraham, filed this appeal from a 
Superior Court judgment denying 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 Abraham’s opening brief that his appeal is 
without merit.  We agree and affirm. 
(2) 
The record reflects that, in September 2007, Abraham pled 
guilty to one count of felony theft.  The Superior Court immediately 
sentenced Abraham to a total period of five years at Level V incarceration, 
 
2
to be suspended upon his successful completion of the Level V Greentree 
Program for a period of probation.  Among other things, the sentence also 
ordered Abraham to pay restitution first to his father, Maurice, in the amount 
of $40,000 and then to his brother, Baxter, in the amount of $17,000.  
Abraham filed a motion for modification of sentence in December 2007, 
which the Superior Court denied.  Thereafter, Abraham filed a motion for 
postconviction relief, which also was denied.  This Court affirmed the 
Superior Court’s denial of postconviction relief on appeal.1  Abraham again 
moved for a sentence modification in June 2011.  The Superior Court denied 
the motion and also denied Abraham’s request for reconsideration.  This 
appeal followed. 
(3) 
In his opening brief on appeal, Abraham argues that the 
restitution ordered by the Superior Court must be modified because Maurice 
Abraham died in 2008 and left him and his brother Baxter as sole heirs to his 
estate.  Thus, according to Abraham, he is entitled to half of the $40,000 in 
restitution that he was ordered to pay to his father.  Abraham argues that the 
restitution order, therefore, must be modified to eliminate the restitution 
owed to his father and to increase the restitution owed to his brother by 
$20,000.  
                                                 
1 Abraham v. State, 2009 WL 387094 (Del. Feb. 18, 2009). 
 
3
(4) 
After careful consideration of the parties’ respective positions 
on appeal, we find no abuse of the Superior Court’s discretion in denying 
Abraham’s motion for modification of sentence.  The death of Abraham’s 
father was not an extraordinary circumstance requiring the Superior Court to 
modify its sentencing order.2  Maurice Abraham’s death did not eliminate 
Abraham’s obligation to pay restitution in the amount of $40,000 to Maurice 
Abraham’s estate.3  How Abraham’s restitution obligation is handled by 
Maurice Abraham’s estate is a matter for the estate’s administrator and need 
not be addressed by the Superior Court in Abraham’s criminal proceedings. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                                 
2 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b) (2012) (providing that the Superior Court will consider a sentence 
modification motion “made more than 90 days after the imposition of sentence only in extraordinary 
circumstances…”) 
3 See, e.g., Kojro v. Sikorski, 267 A.2d 603 (Del. Super. 1970).