Title: Francis v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

See State v.  Francis, Del.  Super. Ct., Cr.  ID No.  0402005944, Slights, J.  (July 28,
1
2004) (order) (imposing sentence for drug offenses, including trafficking).  See Del.  Code
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
LEIGHTON FRANCIS,
§
§
No.  245, 2006
Defendant Below,
§
Appellant,
§
Court Below--Superior Court 
§
of the State of Delaware, in and 
v.
§
for New Castle County 
§
STATE OF DELAWARE,
§
§
Plaintiff Below,
§
Cr.  ID No.  0402005944
Appellee.
§
Submitted: September 22, 2006
Decided:
December 22, 2006
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and JACOBS, Justices.
O R D E R
This 22  day of December 2006, upon consideration of the briefs on
nd
appeal and the Superior Court record, it appears to the Court that:
(1)
On July 28, 2004, the appellant, Leighton Francis, pleaded guilty
to four drug offenses and was sentenced to a total of sixteen years at Level V
imprisonment suspended after serving three and one-half years for probation.
The July 28, 2004 sentencing order (“the sentencing order”) provided that the
Superior Court would “consider a sentence modification after minimum
mandatory[,] if defendant successfully completes drug treatment.”1
Ann.  tit.  16, § 4753A(a)(2)(a) (2003) (providing for two-year minimum mandatory term
of imprisonment for trafficking).
TASC is the acronym for “Treatment Access Services Center.”  TASC  coordinates
2
substance abuse evaluation and treatment provided to criminal defendants.  Del.  Code Ann.
tit.  11, § 6582(c) (2001).
Del.  Super.  Ct.  Crim.  R.  35(b) (2006).
3
2
(2)
In January 2005 and again in February 2005, Francis requested
that the Superior Court modify the sentencing order to include TASC
supervision.   The Superior Court denied the requests on the basis that the
2
sentencing order was appropriate as written; however, the Court indicated that
it would consider adding TASC supervision once Francis completed Level V
or Level IV.  
(3)
In April 2006, Francis filed a motion for modification of sentence
pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b).   Francis reported that he had
3
served minimum mandatory and had successfully completed drug treatment.
In support of his motion, Francis recited the language in the sentencing order
which indicated that the Superior Court would “consider a sentence
modification after minimum mandatory[,] if defendant successfully completes
drug treatment.”
(4)
By order dated April 16, 2006, the Superior Court denied Francis’
motion for modification of sentence on the basis that the sentence was
See Del.  Code Ann.  tit.  11, § 4217 (2001) (providing for modification of sentence
4
upon recommendation of Board of Parole).
State v.  Sloman, 886 A.2d 1257, 1265 (Del.  2005). 
5
3
appropriate, and the motion was repetitive and untimely.  Nonetheless, the
Superior Court indicated that it would “look favorably upon a recommendation
for modification submitted [by the Board of Parole] pursuant to 11 Del.  C. §
4217.”  
4
(5)
On appeal, Francis argues that, in view of the express reservation
of jurisdiction to modify the sentencing order, the Superior Court’s denial of
his sentence modification motion as untimely under Rule 35(b) was an abuse
of discretion.  Moreover, Francis argues that the Superior Court’s reference to
a sentence modification under title 11, section 4217 of the Delaware Code
imposed a new condition that was not previously a part of the sentencing order.
(6)
In a case such as this, where the Superior Court has invoked its
inherent authority to retain jurisdiction to modify a sentence, the ninety-day
time limitation of Rule 35(b) does not apply.   Nonetheless, the Superior
5
Court’s exercise of its inherent authority to consider in the future a sentence
modification that would otherwise be untimely under Rule 35(b) does not
Compare Jones v.  State, 2006 WL 3054633 (Del.  Supr.) (vacating denial of
6
sentence modification as untimely under Rule 35(b) where trial court had expressly
anticipated suspension of incarceration upon completion of a specific drug program) and
Layton v.  State, 2006 WL 1223121 (Del.  Supr.)  (vacating denial of sentence modification
where trial court had expressly retained jurisdiction over sentence and denial of sentence
modification was based solely on procedural time bar of Rule 35(b)).
Mayes v.  State, 604 A.2d 839 (Del.  1992).
7
Francis had indicated in his motion for modification of sentence that his prison
8
counselor had attempted to submit a sentence modification request pursuant to section 4217.
Coleman v.  State, 1993 WL 557943 (Del.  Supr.)  (citing Mayes v.  State, 604 A.2d
9
839 (Del.  1992).
4
thereafter mandate a modification of sentence.   Rather, a sentence modification
6
is directed to the sound judicial discretion of the Superior Court.  
( 7 )
7
Contrary to Francis’ argument, the Superior Court’s indication that it
would look favorably upon an application for sentence modification under
section 4217 of the Delaware Code did  not impose a new condition in the
sentencing order.  Rather, the Superior Court’s reference to section 4217 was
simply a recognition that, if and when such an application was submitted, the
Superior Court would consider it on the merits.8
(8)
The record reflects that Francis’ sentence is within the statutory
limits.  Francis can show no vindictive or arbitrary action by the sentencing
judge.   We hold that the Superior Court’s denial of Francis’ motion for
9
modification of sentence was not an abuse of discretion.
5
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the
Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Randy J.  Holland
Justice