Title: Price v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
MILLARD PRICE, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§       No. 366, 2020 
§ 
§       Court Below—Superior Court 
§       of the State of Delaware 
§   
§       Cr. ID No. 0804009949A (S)  
§  
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:   December 31, 2020 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
February 15, 2021 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; TRAYNOR and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, 
Justices. 
 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
Upon consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the appellee’s motion to 
affirm, and the record on appeal, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Millard Price, filed this appeal from the Superior Court’s 
denial of a motion in which he sought vacatur or modification of his 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) 
In 2014, Price pled guilty to second-degree murder and possession of a 
firearm during the commission of a felony (“PFDCF”).  The Superior Court 
sentenced Price as follows:  for second-degree murder, to thirty years of 
2 
 
imprisonment, suspended after fifteen years and successful completion of the 
Greentree Program for decreasing levels of supervision; and for PFDCF, to ten years 
of imprisonment. 
(3) 
On August 27, 2020, Price filed a “Motion to Vacate or Alternatively 
Resentence,” in which he claimed that he was entitled to relief from his sentence 
under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a).  He made the following arguments that 
he also asserts on appeal:  (i) the sentence is illegal on its face because the Greentree 
Program no longer exists and Price therefore cannot complete that program; (ii) 
correctional officers assaulted him in retribution for a prison riot, violating his 
Eighth Amendment rights; and (iii) he was denied adequate medical care in violation 
of his Eighth Amendment rights.  The Superior Court denied the motion on the 
grounds that prison conditions do not establish a basis for relief under Rule 35, and 
the Department of Correction (“DOC”) could classify Price to a program it deems 
appropriate in light of the elimination of the Greentree Program.  This appeal 
followed. 
(4) 
We review the denial of a motion for sentence modification for abuse 
of discretion.1  Price argues that the assault and denial of adequate medical care 
violated his Eighth Amendment rights and therefore permit a collateral attack on his 
sentence.  We conclude that Price is not entitled to the relief that he seeks.  Cannon 
 
1 Gladden v. State, 2020 WL 773290 (Del. Feb. 17, 2020). 
3 
 
v. State, on which Price relies, held that the Superior Court was required to consider 
evidence, which the defendant sought to introduce, that imposition of a sentence that 
included a statutorily-permitted penalty of whipping “might well have a far-reaching 
and unwarranted adverse effect upon him” because of his individual mental 
condition.2  In this case, in contrast, Price does not challenge an inherent aspect of 
the sentence but rather seeks to challenge conditions and events that occurred in the 
prison while serving his sentence.  Those facts align more closely with the facts 
presented in the other Eighth Amendment decisions on which Price relies.3  But those 
cases involved civil litigation and not modification of a defendant’s criminal 
sentence; those authorities therefore do not support the relief Price seeks.4 
(5) 
Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b) provides that the court will 
consider a motion made more than ninety days after the imposition of a sentence 
only in “extraordinary circumstances or pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 4217.”5  Section 
4217 permits the Superior Court to modify a defendant’s sentence if DOC files an 
application for good cause shown—including a defendant’s serious medical illness 
or infirmity—and certifies that the defendant does not constitute a substantial risk to 
 
2 196 A.2d 399, 400 (Del. 1963). 
3 See Opening Brief at 16-18. 
4 See Woods v. State, 2021 WL 3040007 (Del. Jan. 28, 2021) (stating that Eighth 
Amendment case law cited by appellant did not support desired relief of sentence 
modification). 
5 Del. Super. Ct. R. 35(b). 
4 
 
the community or himself.6  If Price’s “specific individual medical condition 
warrant[s] sentence modification, an application by DOC under § 4217 is the proper 
vehicle to deliver such relief.”7 
(6) 
With respect to Price’s contention that his sentence is illegal because it 
requires him to complete the Greentree Program, which no longer exists, the State 
argues that the Superior Court correctly determined that DOC has discretion to place 
Price in a different drug treatment program.  But it concedes that, in circumstances 
such as these, DOC would normally request that the sentence order be modified to 
reflect that it has discretion to designate a different program.  The State therefore 
suggests that the case be remanded to the Superior Court to allow the court to modify 
the sentence order to reflect that DOC has discretion to approve an appropriate drug 
treatment program for Price.  We agree that remand for that limited purpose is 
appropriate and in the interest of judicial economy. 
 
 
 
 
 
6 11 Del. C. § 4217. 
7 Williams v. State, 2020 WL 7311325, at *1 (Del. Dec. 10, 2020). 
5 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Affirm is 
GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.  The matter is 
REMANDED to allow the Superior Court to modify the sentence order as set forth 
in this order.  Jurisdiction is not retained. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Tamika R. Montgomery-Reeves 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice