Title: Ashley v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
STEPFON ASHLEY, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 370, 2007 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0410004634 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: October 12, 2007 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: November 30, 2007 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 30th day of November 2007, upon consideration of the briefs on 
appeal and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Stepfon Ashley, filed an appeal from 
the Superior Court’s July 2, 2007 order denying his motion for modification 
of sentence.  We find no merit to the appeal.  Accordingly, we affirm. 
 
(2) 
In November 2004, Ashley was indicted on charges of 
Possession With Intent to Deliver Crack Cocaine, Possession of a Controlled 
Substance Within 1000 Feet of a School, Possession of a Controlled 
Substance Within 300 Feet of a Park, and Loitering.  In July 2005, on the 
second day of his trial, Ashley pleaded guilty to the sole charge of 
 
2
Possession With Intent to Deliver.  The remaining charges were dismissed.  
Ashley was sentenced to 5 years at Level V incarceration, to be suspended 
after 1 year for 4 years at Level IV Halfway House, to be suspended in turn 
after 6 months for 18 months of Level III probation. 
 
(3) 
In this appeal, Ashley claims that the Superior Court abused its 
discretion when it denied his motion for sentence modification.  He contends 
that he was unaware that the Superior Court had ordered him, as part of his 
Level III sentence, to have no contact with the City of Wilmington and that 
any such condition would create an unreasonable hardship for him.   
 
(4) 
Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b) provides that the Superior 
Court will consider a motion for sentence modification that is filed more 
than 90 days after sentencing “only in extraordinary circumstances.”  
Ashley’s motion was filed almost 2 years after his sentence was imposed 
and is, therefore, untimely.  To the extent Ashley contends that his alleged 
lack of awareness of the Level III condition constitutes an “extraordinary 
circumstance,” that contention is unavailing.  We are not persuaded that 
Ashley was unaware of the condition the Superior Court placed upon his 
Level III sentence, since he did not raise that contention in the Superior 
Court in the first instance and both the sentencing worksheet and sentencing 
order explicitly include the condition.   
 
3
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED.1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
 
                                                 
1 Ashley’s motion for an expedited appeal is hereby denied as moot.