Title: Smith v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
SHIRLEY SMITH, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 381, 2022 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID No. 1404012579 (K) 
§                     
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:   December 28, 2022 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
January 27, 2023 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 
Upon 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, Shirley Smith, filed this appeal from the Superior 
Court’s denial of her motion for sentence modification.  The State has moved to 
affirm the judgment below on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Smith’s 
opening brief that her appeal is without merit.  We agree and affirm. 
(2) 
In 2014, Smith pleaded guilty to home invasion, first-degree assault, 
possession of a deadly weapon during commission of a felony, and second-degree 
conspiracy.  After a presentence investigation, the Superior Court sentenced Smith 
to a total of fifty-four years of incarceration, suspended after twenty-two years for 
2 
 
decreasing levels of supervision.  Smith did not file a direct appeal, but she has filed 
several motions for postconviction relief or for review or modification of sentence. 
(3) 
On September 23, 2022, Smith filed a motion for sentence modification 
in which she asked the Superior Court to reduce her sentence to nine years of 
incarceration followed by one year of work release or home confinement.  Smith 
based her motion on her successful completion of educational and rehabilitative 
programs while incarcerated and her relationship with her children.  The Superior 
Court denied the motion because it was filed more than ninety days after the 
imposition of sentence and the court found no extraordinary circumstances to 
overcome the time bar set forth in Superior Court Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b).  
Smith has appealed to this Court. 
(4) 
  We find no reversible error.  We review the Superior Court’s denial 
of a motion for modification of sentence under Rule 35(b) for abuse of discretion.1  
Under Rule 35(b), a motion for sentence modification must be filed within ninety 
days 
of 
sentencing, 
unless 
the defendant 
demonstrates 
“extraordinary 
circumstances” or the Department of Correction files an application under 11 Del. 
C. § 4217.2  Smith’s motion was filed well beyond the ninety-day limit.  On appeal, 
Smith argues that her counsel provided ineffective assistance and that her sentence 
 
1 Benge v. State, 101 A.3d 973, 976-77 (Del. 2014). 
2 DEL. SUPER. CT. R. CRIM. PROC. 35(b).  
3 
 
was disproportionate to her participation in the crimes at issue.  She did not present 
those arguments to the Superior Court.  This Court ordinarily does not consider 
arguments that are not presented to the trial court in the first instance, and we find it 
unnecessary to do so here.3  The Superior Court did not abuse its discretion by 
denying the motion.4   
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/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
       Chief Justice 
 
3 See DEL. SUPR. CT. R. 8 (“Only questions fairly presented to the trial court may be presented for 
review; provided, however, that when the interests of justice so require, the Court may consider 
any question not so presented.”); see also Belfield v. State, 2020 WL 6156734, at *2 (Del. Oct. 16, 
2020) (“As a preliminary matter, because Belfield did not raise his claims of ineffective assistance 
of counsel, disproportionate sentencing, or inadequate medical care below, we will not entertain 
them on appeal.”); Davis v. State, 2016 WL 358965, at *2 (Del. Jan. 28, 2016) (stating that Rule 
35 is not the “proper procedural vehicle” for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim). 
4 McDougal v. State, 2019 WL 2275002, at *2 (Del. Mar. 29, 2019).