Title: Simpkins v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
TIMOTHY W. SIMPKINS,
§
§
No. 53, 2006
Defendant Below,
§
Appellant,
§
Court Below--Superior Court 
§
of the State of Delaware, in and 
v.
§
Kent County in Cr. ID No. 
§
0410008967.
STATE OF DELAWARE,
§
§
Plaintiff Below,
§
Appellee.
§
Submitted: May 24, 2006
Decided:
July 14, 2006
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices.
O R D E R
This 14  day of July 2006, upon consideration of the appellant’s opening
th
brief and the appellee’s motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 25(a),
it appears to the Court that:
(1)
On September 14, 2005, Simpkins pleaded  nolo contendere to
Rape in the Fourth Degree and Noncompliance with Conditions of Bond.  The
Superior Court sentenced Simpkins to a total of twelve years at Level V
imprisonment, suspended after eighteen months for probation.
(2)
On October 24, 2005, Simpkins filed a motion for reduction of
sentence pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b).  Simpkins alleged 
Mayes v. State, 604 A.2d 839, 842 (Del. 1992).
1
Melody v. State, 2003 WL 1747237 (Del. Supr.) (citing Mayes v. State, 604 A.2d
2
839, 842-43 (Del. 1992)).
2
involuntary guilty plea, recantation of victim, ineffective assistance of counsel
and financial hardship.
(3)
By order dated January 4, 2006, the Superior Court denied
Simpkins’ Rule 35(b) motion on the basis that the sentence “was imposed
pursuant to a Plea Agreement between the State and the defendant and signed
by the defendant.”  This appeal followed.  In his opening brief on appeal,
Simpkins argues ineffective assistance of counsel.
(4)
“Delaware law is well established that appellate review of
sentences is extremely limited.”    This Court will not interfere with the
1
Superior Court’s denial of a motion for reduction of sentence unless it is
demonstrated that the sentence exceeded the maximum authorized by statute or
was an abuse of the court’s discretion.   
2
(5)
In Simpkins’ case, the record does not reflect that the Superior
Court imposed a sentence that was beyond the maximum allowed by law or
See Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, §§ 770, 4205(b)(3) (2001 & Supp. 2004) (providing that
3
Rape in the Fourth Degree is punishable up to fifteen years at Level V incarceration); Del.
Code Ann. tit. 11, § 2113(c)(1) (2001) (providing that Noncompliance with Conditions of
Bond in connection with a felony is punishable up to five years imprisonment).
See Del. Super. Crim R. 61(governing postconviction remedy) (2006).
4
Del. Supr. Ct. R. 8.
5
3
otherwise abused its discretion when imposing the sentence.   To the extent
3
Simpkins argues otherwise on appeal, his appeal is without merit.
(6)
The Court declines to consider the balance of Simpkins’ arguments
on appeal, e.g., involuntary guilty plea and ineffective assistance of counsel,
which are in the nature of postconviction relief.   Those arguments either were
4
raised for the first time on appeal  or were not explicitly ruled upon by the
Superior Court in the first instance.5
   
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