Title: Webster v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
EDWARD D.  WEBSTER,
§
§
No.  623, 2001
Defendant Below,
§
Appellant,
§
Court Below--Superior Court 
§
of the State of Delaware
v.
§
in and for New Castle County
§
Cr.A. No.  IN98-12-0933 &
STATE OF DELAWARE,
§
IN99–06-1965.
§
Plaintiff Below,
§
Appellee.
§
Def.  ID No.  9811006562
§
   9905005187
Submitted: January 18, 2002
Decided:
March 26, 2002
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, BERGER and STEELE, Justices.
O R D E R
This 26th day of March 2002, upon consideration of the appellant’s opening
brief and the appellee’s motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 25(a), it
appears to the Court that:
(1)
The appellant, Edward D. Webster, filed this appeal from an order of
the Superior Court that denied his third motion for modification of sentence pursuant
to Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b).  The State of Delaware has moved to affirm
the judgment of the Superior Court on the basis that it is manifest on the face of
1State v.  Webster, 2001 WL 789657 (Del.  Super.  Ct.); State v.  Webster, Del.
Super.  Ct., No.  9905005187/9811006562, Del.  Pesco, J. (Aug.  8, 2000).
2An appellate court can affirm the decision of a trial court on different grounds than
those articulated below.  See Unitrin, Inc.  v.  Am.  Gen. Corp., 651 A.2d 1361, 1390
2
Webster’s opening brief that the appeal is without merit.  We find no merit to the
appeal.  Accordingly, we affirm.
(2)
On January 27, 2000, Webster pled guilty, pursuant to Superior Court
Criminal Rule 11(e)(1)(c), to Burglary in the Third Degree and Forgery in the
Second Degree.  Webster was declared a habitual offender pursuant to 11 Del. C.
§ 4214(a) and was sentenced to a total of five years at Level V, suspended after four
years, for one year of probation.
(3)
Webster did not file a direct appeal from his conviction and sentence.
He did, however, file two motions for modification of sentence in the Superior
Court.  The Superior Court denied both modification motions.1 
(4)
On September 25, 2001, Webster filed his third motion for modification
of sentence.  By order dated November 8, 2001, the Superior Court denied
Webster’s motion.  This appeal followed.
(5)
The Superior Court’s denial of Webster’s third motion for modification
of sentence was not an  abuse of discretion, although we affirm the denial of relief
for different reasons.2  As a procedural matter, Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b)
(Del.  1995); Bailey v.  State, 588 A.2d 1121, 1122-23 (Del.  1991). 
3
provides that the court will not consider repetitive requests for relief and will not
consider an application made more than 90 days after the imposition of sentence
except in “extraordinary circumstances.”  In this case, it is clear from the record that
Webster’s third motion for modification of sentence was both repetitive and beyond
the 90-day time limit of Rule 35(b).  Webster has made no showing of, and the
record does not reveal, “extraordinary circumstances” that would justify
consideration of the motion beyond the 90-day time limit for filing the motion.
Consequently, it is manifest to the Court that the State’s motion to affirm should be
granted. 
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/ Myron T. Steele
Justice