Title: Rollins v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DUANE L. ROLLINS, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 401, 2021 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID No. 1212010904 (N) 
§  
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: December 23, 2021 
Decided: 
January 14, 2022 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
After consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the State’s motion to 
affirm, and the record on appeal, the Court concludes that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Duane L. Rollins, filed this appeal from the Superior 
Court’s denial of his motion for correction or modification of sentence.  The State 
has moved to affirm the judgment below on the ground that it is manifest on the face 
of the opening brief that the appeal is without merit.  We agree and affirm. 
(2) 
Rollins pleaded guilty to two counts of strangulation under 11 Del. C. 
§ 607.  In exchange, the State agreed to dismiss multiple other charges against 
Rollins and that it would seek habitual-offender sentencing on one of the counts of 
strangulation but not the other.  In January 2015, the Superior Court sentenced 
 
2 
Rollins as follows:  for one count of strangulation, under the habitual-offender 
statute,1 to ten years of incarceration, and for the other count of strangulation, to five 
years of incarceration, suspended after two years for decreasing levels of 
supervision.  This Court affirmed on appeal.2 
(3) 
On August 25, 2021, Rollins filed a letter in the Superior Court in which 
he asked for immediate release, arguing that his sentence is illegal and that the 
Department of Correction had improperly denied his request for sentence 
modification under 11 Del. C. § 4217.  The Superior Court treated the letter as a 
motion for sentence modification or reduction under Superior Court Criminal Rule 
35(b) and denied the motion on November 3, 2021.  Rollins has appealed to this 
Court.   
(4) 
On appeal, Rollins argues that strangulation was not a violent felony 
under Title 11 at the time that he was convicted, so he was not subject to habitual-
offender sentencing under 11 Del. C. § 4214(a).  He therefore contends that the 
Superior Court abused its discretion by denying him relief under Section 4217. 
(5) 
This Court has previously rejected the argument that Rollins was not 
subject to habitual-offender sentencing because strangulation was not listed as a 
 
1 11 Del. C. § 4214(a). 
2 Rollins v. State, 2015 WL 5032041 (Del. Aug. 25, 2015).  See also Rollins v. State, 2018 WL 
5044333 (Del. Oct. 16, 2018) (affirming denial of motion for postconviction relief). 
 
3 
violent felony in 11 Del. C. § 4201(c).3  The Superior Court therefore did not abuse 
its discretion by considering the motion under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b) 
and denying it as untimely.4   
(6) 
Moreover, the Superior Court did not err by denying Rollins’s request 
for relief under Section 4217.  Section 4217 provides for a modification of sentence 
“solely on the basis of an application filed by the Department of Correction.”5  The 
Department of Correction was not to required to apply for modification of Rollins’s 
sentence under Section 4217.6 
 
 
 
 
3 See Rollins, 2015 WL 5032041, at *4 (“To the extent Rollins is arguing that he could not be 
declared a habitual offender because Strangulation is not a violent felony under Section 4201(c), 
he is incorrect.  The fact that Strangulation was not a violent felony under Section 4201(c) meant 
that the Superior Court was not required to impose a minimum mandatory Level V sentence of 
five years for the second count of Strangulation under Section 4214(a), not that Rollins was 
ineligible for habitual offender status.”).   
4 See DEL. SUPER. CT. CRIM. R. 35(b) (providing that the court will consider a motion for 
modification or reduction of sentence “made more than 90 days after the imposition of sentence 
only in extraordinary circumstances or pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 4217”).  See also Benge v. State, 
101 A.3d 973, 976-77 (Del. 2014) (stating that this Court reviews the Superior Court’s denial of a 
motion for reduction of sentence under Rule 35(b) for abuse of discretion). 
5 11 Del. C. § 4217(b). 
6 See Patton v. State, 2021 WL 4936949, at *2 (Del. Oct. 21, 2021) (“As the Superior Court 
recognized, DOC is not required to apply for modification of Patton’s (or any other inmate’s) 
sentence under § 4217.”); King v. State, 2015 WL 317128, at *2 (Del. Jan. 23, 2015) (“It is within 
the discretion of the Department of Correction to apply for modification of an inmate’s sentence 
under Section 4217.”). 
 
4 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice