Title: Jones v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
ANTOINE T.  JONES,
§
§
No.  486, 2002
Defendant Below,
§
Appellant,
§
Court Below–Superior Court
§
of the State of Delaware, in
v.
§
and for Sussex County in
§
Cr.  ID No.  9910007197
STATE OF DELAWARE,
§
§
Plaintiff Below,
§
Appellee.
§
Submitted: November 13, 2002
Decided:
February 14, 2003
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, BERGER and STEELE, Justices.
O R D E R
This 14th day of February 2003, upon consideration of the appellant’s opening
brief and appendix and the State of Delaware’s motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme
Court Rule 25(a), it appears to the Court that:
(1)
The appellant, Antoine T.  Jones, filed this appeal from the Superior
Court’s order denying his motion for modification of sentence.  The State has filed a
motion to affirm on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Jones’ opening brief
that the appeal is without merit.  We agree and affirm.
(2)
The record reflects that Jones was charged with Possession with Intent
to Deliver Cocaine, Conspiracy in the Second Degree, Possession of Drug
2
Paraphernalia, Resisting Arrest, and Possession of Cocaine.  On March 30, 2000,
Jones pleaded guilty, pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 11(e)(1)(C), to
Possession of Cocaine, Conspiracy in the Second Degree, Possession of Drug
Paraphernalia, and Resisting Arrest.  The Superior Court sentenced Jones to a total of
six years at Level V, pursuant to title 11, section 4204(k) of the Delaware Code,
followed by six months at Level III.  Jones did not appeal.  
(3)
In June 2000, Jones moved for a modification of his sentence.  Jones
claimed that his sentence was excessive and outside the Truth-in-Sentencing
guidelines.  Moreover, Jones alleged that his attorney had been ineffective.  The
Superior Court denied his motion.  Jones did not appeal.  
(4)
In August 2000, Jones moved for correction of an illegal sentence.  Jones
again claimed that the sentence was excessive.  Jones also claimed that no one had
explained to him “what a 4204(k) sentence meant.”  The Superior Court denied his
motion.  Jones did not appeal.  
(5)
In July 2002, Jones again moved for a modification of his sentence.
Jones asserted that, while incarcerated, he had completed several programs.
Furthermore, Jones explained that his parents recently had been involved in
automobile accidents, and that they needed his financial and emotional support.  Jones
3
asserted that these facts constituted exceptional circumstances that warranted a
sentence modification under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b).  
(6)
By order dated July 29, 2002, the Superior Court denied Jones’ motion
on the ground that he had not established extraordinary circumstances to overcome the
ninety-day limitation period in Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b).  This appeal
followed.
(7)
 Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b) provides that the Superior Court
may consider a motion to reduce a sentence only if such motion is made within ninety
days after the sentence is imposed or upon a showing of extraordinary circumstances.
The Superior Court may not consider repetitive requests for reduction of sentence.  
(8)
We find no abuse of discretion in the Superior Court’s denial of Jones’
motion for modification of sentence.  Jones’  motion was repetitive and filed well
beyond the ninety-day time limit of Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b).  Jones did
not establish extraordinary circumstances sufficient to overcome the time bar.
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/ Myron T. Steele
4
Justice