Title: Ketchum v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
KEVIN KETCHUM,
Defendant Below-
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF DELAWARE,
Plaintiff Below-
Appellee.
§
§
§  No. 631, 2001
§
§
§  Court Below:  Superior Court
§  of the State of Delaware,
§  in and for New Castle County
§  Cr. ID. No. 86011157DI
§
§
Submitted: May 2, 2002
  Decided:
June 10, 2002
Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and STEELE, Justices.
O R D E R
This 10th day of June 2002, upon consideration of the appellant’s opening
brief and the State’s motion to affirm, it appears to the Court that:
(1)
The defendant-appellant, Kevin Ketchum, 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
Ketchum’s opening brief that the appeal is without merit.  We agree and affirm.
(2)
The record reflects that Ketchum was convicted in 1988 of second
degree rape, second degree conspiracy, and first degree robbery.  In June 2001,
Ketchum filed two separate motions seeking modification or reduction of his
sentence.  The Superior Court denied both motions on the grounds that they were
2
barred by the ninety day limitations period of Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b),1
and Ketchum had not established extraordinary circumstances in order to
overcome the time bar.  Ketchum did not appeal those rulings.  Instead, he filed
another motion for modification of sentence, which the Superior Court denied in
November 2001.  The Superior Court instructed Ketchum to seek the Department
of Correction’s recommendation for a modification of sentence pursuant to DEL.
CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 4217.2  This appeal ensued.
(3)
The essence of Ketchum’s sentence modification request is that, while
incarcerated, he has availed himself of numerous educational and treatment
programs, including completion of the Key Program, and that the Superior Court’s
original sentence consisted solely of Level V incarceration and did not provide for
any decreasing levels of supervision to aid Ketchum’s transition to society.
Ketchum asserts that these facts establish “extraordinary circumstances” to warrant
a sentence modification under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b).
(4)
We have reviewed the record and the parties' respective contentions
carefully.  We find no abuse of discretion in the Superior Court’s denial of
                                                 
1 Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b) provides in part:  “The court may reduce a sentence
of imprisonment on a motion made within 90 days after the sentence is imposed….The court will
consider an application made more than 90 days after the imposition of sentence only in
extraordinary circumstances or pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 4217.”
2 DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 4217 establishes a procedure to permit the Department of
Correction to apply for a modification of an offender’s sentence for good cause shown, including
“exceptional rehabilitation,” when the Department of Correction certifies that the release of the
offender shall not constitute a substantial risk to the community or the offender.
3
Ketchum’s repetitive motion.  The record reflects that the Superior Court, in June
2001, had denied Ketchum’s request for modification on the ground that he had not
established extraordinary circumstances to overcome the ninety day limitations
period of Rule 35(b).  The only other exception to the time limitation of Rule 35(b)
is the procedure set forth DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 4217.  Accordingly, when
Ketchum filed his repetitive motion for modification, it was appropriate for the
Superior Court to deny Ketchum’s request and to direct him to seek modification
through the procedures of DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 4217.
(5)
Furthermore, we find no abuse of discretion in the Superior Court’s
denial of Ketchum’s transcript request.  There was no hearing held on Ketchum’s
motion for modification.  Accordingly, there was no transcript that could be
prepared that was relevant to the issues on appeal
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/ Carolyn Berger
Justice