Case Title: Jarvis v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 98, 2022

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2022-06-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
MICHAEL JARVIS, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 98, 2022 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§ 
§  Cr. ID No. 1702012094 (S) 
§   
§   
 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: May 4, 2022 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
June 22, 2022 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices.  
 
ORDER 
 
After consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the appellee’s motion to 
affirm, and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Michael Jarvis, filed this appeal from a Superior Court 
order denying his motion for sentence modification under Superior Court Criminal 
Rule 35(b).  The State of Delaware has filed a motion to affirm the judgment 
below on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Jarvis’s opening brief that his 
appeal is without merit.  We agree and affirm. 
(2) 
The record reflects that, on August 11, 2017, Jarvis pleaded guilty to 
first-degree robbery.  The Superior Court sentenced Jarvis to fifteen years of Level 
2 
 
V incarceration, suspended after six years for decreasing levels of supervision.    
Jarvis did not appeal the Superior Court’s judgment. 
(3) 
On March 8, 2022, Jarvis filed a motion for sentence modification. He 
sought immediate release based on allegations that the Department of Correction 
(“DOC”) was not providing adequate medical care for his toxoplasmosis, a  
parasitic condition he was born with that impairs his vision.   The Superior Court 
denied the motion.  This appeal followed.    
(4) 
We review the Superior Court’s denial of a motion for reduction of 
sentence for abuse of discretion.1  To the extent the claim involves a question of 
law, we review the claim de novo.2  Rule 35(b) provides that a motion for sentence 
modification that is not filed within ninety days of sentencing will only be 
considered in extraordinary circumstances or under 11 Del. C. § 4217, which 
permits sentence modification if the DOC files an application for good cause 
shown (such as serious illness) and certifies that the offender does not constitute a 
substantial risk to the community or himself.  In his opening brief, Jarvis argues 
that the Superior Court erred in denying his motion because the DOC’s failure to 
provide adequate medical care for his toxoplasmosis constitutes extraordinary 
circumstances under Rule 35(b).   
 
1 State v. Culp, 152 A.3d 141, 144 (Del. 2016). 
2 Id. 
3 
 
(5) 
As an initial matter, we note that it appears the Superior Court could 
not have reduced five years of Jarvis’s six-year non-suspended Level V sentence 
under Rule 35(b) because the plea agreement reflects that he was subject to a five-
year minimum sentence under Section 832(b)(2).3  In any event, Jarvis did not 
establish extraordinary circumstances to overcome the ninety-day time bar in Rule 
35(b).  Although Jarvis provided documents reflecting that he claims to need 
prescription lenses for the vision impairment he suffers as a result of 
toxoplasmosis, he did not pursue relief under Section 4217 or show that the DOC 
is providing inadequate care.   
(6) 
Under the plain language of Rule 35(b), Section 4217 is the 
appropriate mechanism through which an offender may pursue a sentence 
modification based upon serious medical illness.4   Jarvis asserts that DOC will not 
file such an application because it will not admit it cannot provide the necessary 
medical care, but he did not raise this assertion in the Superior Court.  Nor has he 
represented that he initiated the Section 4217 process to determine his eligibility 
for a medical modification of sentence by submitting a request and the required 
 
3 State v. Sturgis, 947 A.2d 1087, 1092 (Del. 2008). 
4 See, e.g., Holmes v. State, 2015 WL 667522, at *1 (Del. Feb. 12, 2015) (affirming denial of 
motion for sentence modification by defendant who was suffering from liver cancer in absence 
of Section 4217 certification); Briddell v. State, 2013 WL 6212228, at *1 (Del. Nov. 26, 2013) 
(“In the absence of an application by the Department of Correction [under 11 Del. C. § 4217], 
Briddell cannot expect a sentence modification under Rule 35(b) based on a serious medical 
condition.”).  Jarvis’s reliance on State v. DeRoche, 2003 WL 22293654 (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 
29, 2003) is misplaced as that case involved had a well-documented record of inadequate 
medical care. 
4 
 
forms to DOC. Under these circumstances, the Superior Court did not err in 
denying Jarvis’s untimely motion for sentence modification.  
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is 
GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice