Case Title: Gordon v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 93, 2010

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2010-05-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
THOMAS J. GORDON,  
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 93, 2010 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below—Superior Court  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware in and  
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
for New Castle County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
Cr. ID No. 0610025194 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: March 18, 2010 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
May 25, 2010 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 25th day of May 2010, upon consideration of the appellant’s opening 
brief, the appellee’s motion to affirm and the Superior Court record, it appears to 
the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The appellant, Thomas J. Gordon, filed this appeal from the Superior 
Court’s denial of his motion for modification of sentence and motion for correction 
of an illegal sentence.  The appellee, State of Delaware, has moved to affirm the 
Superior Court’s judgment.1 
 
(2) 
On April 5, 2007, Gordon pled guilty to Assault in the Second 
Degree, Distributing Drugs, and Terroristic Threatening.  On June 8, 2007, after a 
                                          
 
1 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
 
2
presentence investigation, the Superior Court sentenced Gordon to five years at 
Level V for assault, thirty days at Level V for terroristic threatening, and two years 
at Level V suspended immediately for distributing drugs. 
 
(3) 
On November 13, 2009, Gordon filed a motion for modification of 
sentence.  On January 21, 2010, Gordon filed a motion for correction of an illegal 
sentence.  In both motions, Gordon challenged his June 8, 2007 sentencing on the 
basis that the presentence report was inaccurate.  By order dated January 25, 2010, 
the Superior Court denied Gordon’s motions on the basis that the sentence was 
“fair and appropriate.” 
 
(4) 
It is manifest on the face of Gordon’s opening brief that this appeal is 
without merit.  In the Superior Court, both of Gordon’s motions were untimely and 
thus procedurally defaulted.2  On appeal, Gordon has not substantiated his claims 
that his sentence was based on a misleading presentence report.3 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is 
GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
          Justice  
                                          
 
2 See Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(a), (b) (providing in pertinent part that a motion for 
modification of sentence and a motion to correct a sentence imposed in an illegal manner must 
be filed within ninety days of sentencing). 
3 For one thing, Gordon did not request, and the record does not otherwise include, a transcript of 
the June 8, 2007 sentencing.  Tricoche v. State, 525 A.2d 151, 154 (Del. 1987).