Title: Fisher v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JAMES R. FISHER, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 232, 2019 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID No. 1403010356 (S)  
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
     Submitted:  July 23, 2019 
 
 
 
 
   Decided:  September 4, 2019 
 
Before VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and SEITZ, 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, James R. Fisher, filed this appeal from the Superior 
Court’s denial of his motion for sentence correction under Superior Court Criminal 
Rule 35(a).  The State of Delaware has filed a motion to affirm the judgment below 
on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Fisher’s opening brief that his appeal 
is without merit.  We agree and affirm. 
(2) 
On July 15, 2014, Fisher pled guilty to his seventh Driving Under the 
Influence offense.  That same day the Superior Court sentenced Fisher to fifteen 
years of Level V incarceration, to be suspended after eight years and successful 
2 
 
completion of the Key Program or Greentree Program, followed by one year of Level 
IV Residential Substance Abuse Treatment and two years of Level III Aftercare.  
The sentencing order provided that the non-suspended Level V time was to be served 
without the benefit of early release under 11 Del. C. § 4204(k).   
(3) 
The sentencing order also provided that Fisher would enter into the 
ordered residential treatment program, at a time designated by the Department of 
Correction (“DOC”), so that he would complete it during or soon after his fifteen 
years of unsuspended Level V time.  On July 29, 2014, the Superior Court corrected 
the order to reflect that the DOC would designate the time that Fisher would enter 
into the residential treatment program so that he could complete it during or soon 
after his eight years, not fifteen years, of unsuspended Level V time.  In 2015, the 
Superior Court removed the § 4204(k) condition from the sentence. 
(4) 
On March 27, 2019, Fisher filed a motion for sentence correction under 
Rule 35(a).  Based on his good time calculations, he argued that the DOC was 
wrongly requiring him to complete six years of his eight-year Level V sentence 
before sending him to the Key Program and that the DOC should send him to the 
Key Program immediately.  The Superior Court denied the motion.  The Superior 
Court found that the sentence was reasonable and appropriate, the motion was filed 
more than 90 days after imposition of the sentence and there were no extraordinary 
circumstances to justify modification of the sentence under Rule 35(b), and the 
3 
 
Superior Court would not micro-manage DOC’s calculation of good time credits and 
assignment of offenders to programs.  This appeal followed.      
(5) 
On appeal, Fisher argues that the Superior Court erred in treating his 
motion for sentence correction under Rule 35(a) as a motion for sentence 
modification under Rule 35(b).  We review the denial of a motion for correction of 
sentence for abuse of discretion.1  To the extent a claim involves a question of law, 
we review the claim de novo.2  Under Rule 35(a), a sentence is illegal if it exceeds 
statutory limits, violates double jeopardy, is ambiguous with respect to the time and 
manner in which it is to be served, is internally contradictory, omits a term required 
to be imposed by statute, is uncertain as to its substance, or is a sentence that the 
judgment of conviction did not authorize.3    
(6) 
Although it appears that the Superior Court mistakenly treated Fisher’s 
motion as a motion for modification of sentence under Rule 35(b), rather than a 
motion for correction of sentence under Rule 35(a), we nonetheless affirm the 
Superior Court’s denial of Fisher’s motion on the independent and alternative 
ground that it lacked merit under Rule 35(a).4  The Superior Court sentenced Fisher 
                                                 
1 Fountain v. State, 2014 WL 4102069, at *1 (Del. Aug. 19, 2014). 
2 Id. 
3 Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998). 
4 Unitrin, Inc. v. American Gen. Corp., 651 A.2d 1361, 1390 (Del. 1995) (noting that the Delaware 
Supreme Court may affirm a trial court's judgment for reasons different than those articulated by 
the trial court). 
4 
 
to fifteen years of Level V incarceration, suspended after Fisher served eight years 
and successfully completed the Key Program.  Contrary to Fisher’s contentions, his 
calculation of good time and disagreement with the DOC’s decision to send him to 
the Key Program after he serves six years instead of right now as he wishes does not 
render his sentence ambiguous or internally contradictory.  Fisher’s sentence is not 
illegal.     
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/  James T. Vaughn, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice