Title: Valentine v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ANTHONY VALENTINE, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 562, 2014 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below–Superior Court 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware in and  
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
for New Castle County  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
Cr. ID No. 0604010492 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Submitted: October 29, 2014 
Decided: 
December 31, 2014 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice, RIDGELY and VALIHURA, Justices.  
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 31st day of December 2014, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief and the appellee’s motion to affirm, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Anthony Valentine, filed this appeal from the Superior 
Court’s September 10, 2014 denial of his second motion for modification of 
sentence under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b) (“Rule 35(b)”).  The appellee, 
State of Delaware (“State”), has moved to affirm the Superior 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. 
                                          
 
1 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
2 
 
(2) 
In December 2008, Valentine was tried before a Superior Court jury 
and convicted of two counts of Robbery in the First Degree and Possession of a 
Deadly Weapon During the Commission of a Felony, and one count of Assault in 
the Second Degree and Conspiracy in the Second Degree.  In a bench trial 
immediately following the jury verdict, Valentine was convicted of Possession of a 
Deadly Weapon by a Person Prohibited.  On February 6, 2009, the Superior Court 
sentenced Valentine to an aggregate of twenty-five years at Level V suspended 
after twelve years for decreasing levels of supervision.  As conditions of the 
sentence, Valentine was required to undergo a mental health evaluation and a 
substance abuse evaluation and follow any recommendations for treatment.  On 
direct appeal, this Court affirmed Valentine’s convictions.2 
(3) 
In August 2010, Valentine filed a timely motion for postconviction 
relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.  The Superior Court denied the 
motion after concluding that Valentine’s claims were either procedurally barred or 
without merit.3  Valentine did not appeal. 
(4) 
In April 2009, while his direct appeal was pending, Valentine filed a 
“motion for modification of sentence instruction” under Rule 35(b).  Valentine 
sought a sentence modification alleging “rehabilitative achievement” and his need 
                                          
 
2 Valentine v. State, 2009 WL 2415853 (Del. Aug. 7, 2009). 
3 State v. Valentine, 2011 WL 378690 (Del. Super. Jan. 31, 2011). 
3 
 
for mental health and substance abuse treatment.  The Superior Court denied the 
motion after concluding that the sentence was appropriate, and that Valentine had 
not provided information warranting a modification of sentence. 
(5) 
On July 10, 2014, Valentine filed a “motion for behavioral and 
medical reduction” seeking a reduction of sentence under Rule 35(b).  Valentine 
sought a sentence reduction alleging that he was in need of treatment for an eye 
infection that had gone untreated for the past four years. 
(6) 
When a Rule 35(b) motion is filed more than ninety days after the 
sentence is imposed, the Superior Court will consider a sentence reduction or 
modification “only in extraordinary circumstances” or under title 11, section 4217 
of the Delaware Code.4  Section 4217 in pertinent part permits a sentence 
modification if the Department of Correction certifies that the defendant has a 
serious medical illness and that the defendant’s release shall not constitute a 
substantial risk to the community or to the defendant.5   
(7) 
By order dated September 10, 2014, the Superior Court summarily 
denied Valentine’s Rule 35(b) motion for reduction of sentence as time-barred and 
for Valentine’s failure to demonstrate any cause for relief.  This appeal followed. 
                                          
 
4 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b). 
5 11 Del. C. § 4217(b), (c). 
4 
 
(8) 
On appeal, Valentine argues that the Superior Court’s summary denial 
of his Rule 35(b) motion was an abuse of discretion.  Valentine contends that the 
Department of Correction’s alleged failure to provide reasonable medical care for 
his eye infection establishes the requisite “extraordinary circumstances” to avoid 
the ninety-day time limitation of Rule 35(b).  In support of his appeal, Valentine 
cites to the Superior Court’s 2003 decision in State v. DeRoche,6 wherein the court 
modified a sentence after determining that the defendant was not given adequate 
medical care under title 11, section 6536 of the Delaware Code.7 
(9) 
Having carefully considered the parties’ positions on appeal, the Court 
concludes that Valentine’s claims are without merit.  Other than his summary 
allegation of an untreated eye infection, and unlike the defendant in State v. 
DeRoche, Valentine has not offered, and the Superior Court record does not reflect, 
any indication that he is not receiving adequate medical care.  In the absence of 
                                          
 
6 State v. DeRoche, 2003 WL 22293654 (Del. Super. Aug. 29, 2003).  
7 11 Del. C. § 6536(a) provides: 
The Department [of Correction] shall promulgate reasonable 
standards, and shall establish reasonable health, medical and dental 
services, for each institution, including preventive, diagnostic and 
therapeutic measures on both an out-patient and hospital basis for 
all types of patients. The nature and extent of such medical and 
dental services shall be determined by the Commissioner of 
Correction in consultation with the Bureau Chief of Correctional 
Healthcare Services.  The Department may authorize, under 
regulations, inmates to be taken, with or without guard, to a 
medical institution or facility outside the institution. 
 
5 
 
any indication that he is not receiving adequate medical care, Valentine’s medical 
condition as summarily alleged does not constitute “extraordinary circumstances” 
warranting a reduction of sentence.  Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion in 
the Superior Court’s summary denial of Valentine’s untimely and repetitive motion 
under Rule 35(b).8 
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/ Karen L. Valihura 
Justice 
                                          
 
8 DeJesus v. State, 2014 WL 2609528 (Del. June 10, 2014); Railford v. State, 2014 WL 44031 
(Del. Jan. 2, 2014); Hubbard v. State, 2011 WL 5009772 (Del. Oct. 20, 2011).