Case Title: Stevens v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 571, 2009

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2009-11-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ANTHONY W. STEVENS,   
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 571, 2009 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for Kent County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0809001791 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: October 15, 2009 
 
 
 
 
Decided:    November 4, 2009 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 4th day of November 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 defendant-appellant, Anthony W. Stevens, filed an appeal 
from the Superior Court’s September 14, 2009 order denying his motion for 
modification of sentence pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 35.  The 
plaintiff-appellee, the State of Delaware, has moved to affirm the Superior 
 
2 
Court’s judgment on the ground that it is manifest on the face of the opening 
brief that the appeal is without merit.1  We agree and affirm. 
 
(2) 
In October 2008, Stevens was indicted on charges of Attempted 
Felony Theft, Trespass in the Third Degree, and Escape After Conviction.  
In December 2008, with the assistance of counsel, Stevens pleaded guilty to 
the sole charge of Escape After Conviction.  He was sentenced to 8 years of 
Level V incarceration, to be suspended after 2 years for decreasing levels of 
supervision.   
 
(3) 
In January 2009, Stevens filed a motion for sentence 
modification.  The Superior Court denied the motion, but noted in its order 
that the sentencing order could be modified for placement in the Key and 
Crest Programs if Stevens wished.  The Superior Court docket sheet reflects 
that, in March and April 2009, Stevens wrote to the sentencing judge and 
requested that the sentencing order be modified in accordance with the 
judge’s suggestion.2   
 
(4) 
On May 1, 2009, the Superior Court modified Stevens’ 
sentence to provide for Level IV Crest following completion of the 2-year 
Level V sentence, in accordance with Stevens’ request.  On August 13, 
                                                 
1 Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
2 Stevens’ first letter stated, “. . . I do desire and request the Key and Crest Program and 
all terms that follow.  I ask respectfully that this sentence be put into effect immediately.”  
His second letter stated, “. . . I do desire and request the modified sentence set forth by 
the court for the defendant.” 
 
3 
2009, Stevens again moved to modify his sentence, this time on the ground 
that he no longer wanted the modification he previously had requested.   
 
(5) 
Stevens has presented no evidence that the Superior Court 
abused its discretion by modifying his sentencing order.3  Moreover, there is 
no evidence that Stevens’ modified sentencing order contained a sentence 
that exceeded the maximum limits authorized by law or was the result of 
vindictive or arbitrary action by the sentencing judge.4  As such, the 
judgment of the Superior Court must be affirmed. 
 
(6) 
It is manifest on the face of the opening brief that this appeal is 
without merit because the issue presented on appeal is controlled by settled 
Delaware law and, to the extent that judicial discretion is implicated, there 
was no abuse of discretion. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to 
affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
       Justice    
                                                 
3 State v. Lewis, 797 A.2d 1198, 1202 (Del. 2002). 
4 Mayes v. State, 604 A.2d 839, 842-44 (Del. 1992).