Title: Szulborski v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ERIC K. SZULBORSKI, 
 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 116, 2016 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID 0903021499 
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: August 24, 2016 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: October 21, 2016 
 
Before HOLLAND, VALIHURA, and VAUGHN, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 21st  day of October 2016, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief, the State’s motion to affirm, and the record below, it appears 
to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Eric Szulborski, filed this appeal from a Superior 
Court order denying his third motion for modification of sentence.  The State 
filed a motion to affirm the judgment below on the ground that it is manifest 
on the face of Szulborski’s opening brief that his appeal is without merit.  
We agree and affirm. 
(2) 
The State indicted Szulborski in August 2009 for 151 criminal 
offenses.  In December 2009, Szulborski and the State entered into a plea 
 
2 
agreement.  Szulborski pled guilty to three counts of Burglary in the Second 
Degree and one count of Conspiracy in the Second Degree.  The remaining 
charges were dismissed.  The Superior Court immediately sentenced 
Szulborski to a total period of sixteen years at Level V incarceration to be 
suspended after serving ten years in prison for decreasing levels of 
supervision.  The first nine years of Szulborski’s ten-year sentence is a 
minimum mandatory term of incarceration.  Szulborski did not appeal.  
Instead, he filed a motion for modification of sentence in March 2010, which 
the Superior Court denied.  Szulborski filed another motion for modification 
of sentence in April 2013, which the Superior Court again denied.  
Szulborski did not appeal either of those judgments. 
(3) 
In February 2016, Szulborski filed his third for modification of 
his sentence.  Szulborski’s grounds for a sentence reduction or modification 
were based upon his accomplishments while in prison1 and a detainer lodged 
against him by the State of Maryland, where he still has to serve a ten-year 
sentence.  His motion asked the Superior Court to: (i) terminate or reduce 
the last, non-mandatory year of his ten-year prison sentence; (ii) terminate 
the TASC monitoring portion of his sentence; and (iv) terminate or reduce 
the Level IV portion of his sentence.  The Superior Court denied his motion 
                                                 
1 Specifically, Szulborski stated that he completed his GED and the Greentree Program 
and that has been employed throughout his incarceration. 
 
3 
under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b) because it was repetitive and 
because his sentence was appropriate and Szulborski had not provided any 
additional information to warrant a modification of sentence.  This appeal 
followed. 
(4) 
On appeal, Szulborski asserts two arguments that were not 
raised in the motion he filed in the Superior Court.  First, he contends that 
the Superior Court violated the covenant of good faith and fair dealing when 
it denied his motion for modification of sentence because the judge told him 
at his sentencing in 2009 that the Superior Court would consider a sentence 
modification if Szulborksi completed a treatment program and got his GED 
while incarcerated.  Second, Szulborski contends that the Superior Court 
violated his equal protection rights in denying his sentence modification 
based on his achievements while incarcerated because the Superior Court 
recently granted a similar motion filed by a female inmate.  Finally, he 
contends that the Superior Court erred in denying his request for a copy of 
the transcripts of his guilty plea and sentencing at State expense.   
(5) 
After careful consideration, we conclude that Szulborski’s 
assertions provide no basis for this Court to reverse the Superior Court’s 
denial of his motion for modification of sentence.  Superior Court Criminal 
Rule 35(b) provides that the Superior Court will not consider repetitive 
 
4 
requests for sentence modification.2  This was Szulborski’s third motion for 
modification of sentence.  To the extent Szulborski now asserts an equal 
protection claim, he did not raise that argument to the Superior Court in the 
first instance.  This Court will not consider it for the first time on appeal.3  
Under the circumstances, we find no abuse of the Superior Court’s 
discretion in denying Szulborski’s repetitive motion for modification of 
sentence.  Moreover, Szulborksi was not entitled to a free copy of transcripts 
in order to pursue his collateral motion.4  Given the repetitive nature of the 
motion for modification of sentence, we find no abuse of the Superior 
Court’s discretion in denying his motion for transcripts at State expense. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                                 
2 Id. 
3 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 8 (2016). 
4Miller v. State, 2008 WL 623236, at *2 (Del. Mar.7, 2008) (citing United States v. 
MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 325–26, 96 S.Ct. 2086, 48 L.Ed.2d 666 (1976)).