Title: Hall v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JAMES HALL,   
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 334, 2010 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for Kent County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0801023358 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: July 20, 2010 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: August 16, 2010 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 16th day of August 2010, 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, James Hall, filed an appeal from the 
Superior Court’s May 12, 2010 order denying his second motion for 
sentence modification pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 35.1  The 
plaintiff-appellee, the State of Delaware, has moved to affirm the Superior 
                                                 
1 Hall’s first motion was denied on August 6, 2008. 
 
2 
Court’s judgment on the ground that it is manifest on the face of the opening 
brief that the appeal is without merit.2  We agree and affirm. 
 
(2) 
On April 29, 2008, Hall, with the assistance of counsel, pleaded 
guilty to Felony Theft, Criminal Mischief, 3 counts of Misdemeanor Theft, 
and Burglary in the Third Degree---6 of 25 criminal charges against him.  
He was sentenced as a habitual offender to a total of 6 years of Level V 
incarceration, to be suspended after 3 years for decreasing levels of 
supervision.  The sentencing order provided that the amount of restitution to 
be paid by Hall was to be submitted by the Department of Justice within 60 
days.  On June 25, 2008, Hall’s sentence was amended to provide for 
restitution to 66 victims, in the amount of $49,688.24.3   
 
(3) 
In this appeal, Hall claims that he was never notified of the 
amendment to the sentencing order and never had an opportunity to offer 
any objection to the restitution claims.   
 
(4) 
Under Rule 35(b), a timely motion for sentence modification 
must be filed within 90 days of the imposition of sentence.4  In the absence 
of any showing of extraordinary circumstances, Hall’s motion was clearly 
                                                 
2 Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
3 The sentencing order subsequently was corrected on July 28, 2008 to note that 2 of 
Hall’s sentences were TIS rather than non-TIS, as was reflected on the original 
sentencing order. 
4 Defoe v. State, 750 A.2d 1200, 1202 (Del. 2000).  In this case, a timely motion had to be 
filed within 90 days of June 25, 2008. 
 
3 
untimely.  Moreover, under Rule 35(b), the Superior Court is not required to 
consider repetitive requests for sentence modification.  Here, Hall previously 
filed an unsuccessful motion for sentence modification after the sentencing 
order was amended, rendering his current motion repetitive.  Finally, the 
record before us reflects that counsel for Hall was provided a copy of the 
amended sentencing order and offered no objection to it.  As such, we 
conclude that the Superior Court properly denied Hall’s motion for sentence 
modification. 
 
(5) 
It is manifest on the face of the opening brief that this appeal is 
without merit because the issues presented on appeal are 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/ Carolyn Berger 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice