Case Title: Iverson v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 216, 2009

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2009-07-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
KENNETH W. IVERSON, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 216, 2009 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below—Superior Court  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware, in and 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
for Sussex County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
Cr. ID No. 0506011530   
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: May 7, 2009 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
July 16, 2009 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 16th day of July 2009, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief and the appellee’s motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 25(a), it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The appellant, Kenneth W. Iverson, filed this appeal from the 
Superior Court’s order of April 1, 2009 that denied his motion for 
reduction/modification of partial confinement.  The appellee, State of 
Delaware, has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment on the basis 
 
2
that it is manifest on the face of the opening brief that the appeal is without 
merit.1 
 
(2) 
The record reflects that Iverson pled guilty on October 20, 2005 
to one count of Rape in the Third Degree and was sentenced to fifteen years 
at Level V, suspended after five years and successful completion of the 
Family Problems program, for one year at Level IV home confinement and 
nine years at Level III probation.  The sentencing order notes that the 
probation imposed “exceeds SB 50 sentencing guidelines pursuant to 11 Del. 
C. § 4333(d)(1).”2 
 
(3) 
Between November 16, 2005 and August 3, 2006, Iverson filed 
a total of three motions for modification of sentence pursuant to Superior 
Court Criminal Rule 35(b) (“Rule 35(b)”).  Citing family hardship, remorse 
and his lack of a prior record, Iverson sought to reduce his Level V time to 
one or two years.  The Superior Court denied Iverson’s first sentence 
modification motion on the basis that the sentence imposed was reasonable.  
The Superior Court denied Iverson’s second and third motions on the bases 
                                          
 
1 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
2 Former Senate Bill 50, found at 74 Del. Laws c. 27, established limits to certain 
probationary sentences.  Section 4333(d)(1) provides in pertinent part that those 
limitations shall not apply “[t]o any sentence imposed for a conviction of any sex offense 
. . . if the sentencing court determines on the record that a longer period of probation or 
suspension of sentence will reduce the likelihood that the offender will commit a sex 
offense or other violent offense in the future.”  Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 4333(d)(1) 
(2007).        
 
3
that the sentence imposed was reasonable and appropriate and the motions 
were untimely. 
 
(4) 
On 
April 
1, 
2009, 
Iverson 
filed 
a 
motion 
for 
reduction/modification of partial confinement.  Iverson sought to reduce the 
length of his Level IV home confinement and the length and level of his 
Level III probation.  By order dated April 1, 2009, the Superior Court denied 
Iverson’s motion on the bases that the sentence imposed was  
reasonable and appropriate and the motion was untimely.  This appeal 
followed. 
 
(5) 
On appeal, Iverson disputes the Superior Court’s determination 
that his motion was untimely.  Iverson’s argument is well-taken.  Rule 35(b) 
specifically provides that the Superior Court may reduce the “term or 
conditions of partial confinement or probation . . . at any time.”3 
 
(6) 
We have concluded that the Superior Court erred when denying 
Iverson’s motion for reduction/modification of partial confinement as 
untimely.  Moreover, because there is no transcript of the sentencing hearing 
in the record, the Court is unable to review whether the Superior Court’s 
                                          
 
3 Del. Super. Ct. R. 35(b); Johnson v. State, 2008 WL 187958 (Del. Supr.).    
 
4
imposition of probation pursuant to title 11, section 4333(d)(1) was 
reasonable and appropriate.4 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is 
DENIED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is REVERSED, and this 
matter is REMANDED to the Superior Court for further consideration of 
Iverson’s motion for reduction/modification of partial confinement 
consistent with this Order.  Jurisdiction is not retained. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs 
 
 
 
 
 
 
         Justice 
                                          
 
4 It appears from the court dockets that Iverson preempted his request for preparation of 
transcript at State expense when he filed his opening brief and appendix in this Court 
prior to a determination of his request for transcript in the Superior Court.