Title: Robertson v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JOHN ROBERTSON, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 444, 2007 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0412018173 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:  September 4, 2007 
 
 
 
 
   Decided:  October 5, 2007 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 5th day of October 2007, 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 defendant-appellant, John Robertson, filed an appeal from 
the Superior Court’s July 27, 2007 order denying his motion for 
modification of sentence pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b).  
The plaintiff-appellee, the State of Delaware, has moved to affirm the 
 
2
Superior Court’s judgment on the ground that it is manifest on the face of 
the opening brief that the appeal is without merit.  We agree and affirm.1 
 
(2) 
In September 2005, Robertson pleaded guilty to Assault in the 
First Degree.  He was sentenced to 10 years of Level V incarceration, to be 
suspended after 3 years for 6 months at Level IV Halfway House and 18 
months at Level III.  Since then, Robertson filed approximately five motions 
to reduce or modify his sentence, all of which the Superior Court denied.     
 
(3) 
In this appeal, Robertson claims that the Superior Court abused 
its discretion when it denied his latest motion for sentence modification.  He 
contends that, based upon his achievements in prison, his sentence should be 
modified to rescind his Level IV time, allowing him to proceed directly from 
Level V to Level III.   
 
(4) 
Under Rule 35(b), repetitive requests for sentence modification 
will not be considered.2  Moreover, Robertson has not demonstrated any 
reason for rescinding his Level IV time.  While Robertson has participated in 
various programs during his incarceration, that participation does not justify 
Robertson proceeding directly from Level V to Level III.  As such, the 
                                                 
1 We affirm the Superior Court’s judgment, albeit on grounds different from those relied 
upon by the Superior Court.  Unitrin, Inc. v. Am. Gen. Corp., 651 A.2d 1361, 1390 (Del. 
1995). 
2 Webster v. State, Del. Supr., No. 623, 2001, Steele, J. (Mar. 26, 2002). 
 
3
Superior Court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to modify 
Robertson’s sentence. 
 
(5) 
It is manifest on the face of the opening brief that this appeal is 
without merit because the issues presented on appeal are controlled by 
settled Delaware law and, to the extent that judicial discretion is implicated, 
there was no abuse of discretion. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Supreme 
Court Rule 25(a), the State of Delaware’s motion to affirm is GRANTED.  
The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
       Justice