Case Title: Ferguson v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 278, 2002

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2003-07-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
MARK T. FERGUSON, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 278, 2002 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr.A. Nos. IN99-09-0063; 0064 
§                   IN99-09-0862 
§                   IN99-09-0072 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: June 6, 2003 
 
 
 
 
  Decided:   July 3, 2003 
 
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and STEELE, Justices 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This third day of July 2003, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal 
and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Mark T. Ferguson, filed an appeal 
from the Superior Court’s April 25, 2002 order denying his motion for 
sentence reduction pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b).  We find 
no merit to the appeal.  Accordingly, we affirm. 
 
(2) 
In June 2000, Ferguson pleaded guilty to two counts of Felony 
Theft and two counts of Conspiracy in the Second Degree.  He was 
sentenced to a total of eight years incarceration at Level V, to be suspended 
after five years for eighteen months at decreasing levels of probation.  
 
2
Ferguson’s convictions and sentences were affirmed by this Court on direct 
appeal. 1  This is Ferguson’s second motion for sentence reduction.2   
 
(3) 
By order dated April 25, 2002, the Superior Court denied 
Ferguson’s second motion for sentence reduction, stating that the sentence 
imposed was appropriate and Ferguson had not provided sufficient 
justification to warrant a modification.  This appeal followed. 
 
(4) 
The Superior Court’s denial of Ferguson’s m
otion was not an 
abuse of discretion, although we affirm for reasons other than those cited by 
the Superior Court.3  As a procedural matter, Rule 35(b) provides that the 
court will not consider repetitive requests for relief and will not consider an 
application made more than 90 days after the imposition of a sentence 
except in “extraordinary circumstances.”  Ferguson’s second motion for 
sentence reduction clearly was both repetitive and filed beyond the 90-day 
time limit of Rule 35(b).  Moreover, Ferguson has made no showing of 
“extraordinary circumstances” that would justify consideration of the 
motion.    
                                                                 
1Ferguson v. State, Del. Supr., No. 503, 2000, Walsh, J. (July 18, 2001) (determining, 
among other things, that Ferguson’s guilty plea was voluntarily entered and that there 
was no basis for a reduction of his sentence). 
2The Superior Court denied Ferguson’s first motion for sentence reduction in January 
2001. 
3Unitrin, Inc. v. Am. Gen. Corp., 651 A.2d 1361, 1390 (Del. 1995). 
 
3
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice