Title: Schmidt v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JOHN H. SCHMIDT, JR., 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 596, 2015 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§ 
§  Cr. ID No. 0111005916 
§   
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: March 18, 2016 
 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
April 15, 2016 
 
Before HOLLAND, VALIHURA, and VAUGHN, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 15th day of April 2016, upon consideration of the appellant’s opening 
brief, the appellee’s motion to affirm, and the record below, it appears to the Court 
that: 
(1) 
The appellant, John H. Schmidt, Jr., filed this appeal from a Superior 
Court order denying his motion for modification of sentence.  The State of 
Delaware has filed a motion to affirm the judgment below on the ground that it is 
manifest on the face of Schmidt’s opening brief that his appeal is without merit.  
We agree and affirm. 
(2) 
The record reflects that Schmidt pled guilty to six counts of Robbery 
in the First Degree and one count of Robbery in the Second Degree in 2002.  
2 
 
Schmidt was sentenced to thirty-one years of Level V incarceration, suspended 
after twenty years for deceasing levels of supervision.  Schmidt did not appeal the 
Superior Court’s judgment. 
(3) 
On September 3, 2015, Schmidt filed a motion for modification of 
sentence under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b).  Based upon his unsuccessful 
efforts to obtain commutation of his sentence from the Board of Pardons and to 
have the Department of Correction file an application for sentence reduction under 
11 Del. C. § 4217 as well as his exemplary conduct and rehabilitation efforts in 
prison, Schmidt argued that there were extraordinary circumstances supporting 
modification of his sentence.  The Superior Court denied Schmidt’s motion in an 
order dated October 6, 2015.  The Superior Court found that the sentence was 
imposed pursuant to a plea agreement and appropriate for all of the reasons stated 
at the time of sentencing, the motion was filed more than ninety days after 
imposition of the sentence, and exemplary conduct and successful rehabilitation 
efforts did not constitute extraordinary circumstances under Rule 35(b).  This 
appeal followed.   
(4) 
We review the Superior Court’s denial of a motion for modification of  
sentence for abuse of discretion.1  To the extent the claim involves a question of 
                                                 
1 Weber v. State, 2015 WL 2329160, at *1 (Del. May 12, 2015). 
3 
 
law, we review the claim de novo.2  Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b) provides 
that a motion for reduction of sentence that is not filed within ninety days of 
sentencing (such as Schmidt’s motion) will only be considered in extraordinary 
circumstances or pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 4217.  Under Section 4217, the Superior 
Court may modify a sentence if the Department of Correction files an application 
for good cause shown (which includes rehabilitation of the offender) and certifies 
that the offender does not constitute a substantial risk to the community or himself.     
(5) 
In his opening brief, Schmidt does not identify any error by the 
Superior Court, but instead claims, for the first time, that the Department of 
Correction violated his liberty interest under the Fourteenth Amendment by 
denying his request for an application under Section 4217 based upon 
inappropriate criteria (his criminal history and the nature of his offenses).  Schmidt 
asks this Court to order the Department of Correction to file an application under 
Section 4217.  As the State points out, Schmidt essentially seeks a writ of 
mandamus.  Schmidt did not seek this relief below and, in any event, this Court 
lacks jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus to the Department of Correction.3         
                                                 
2 Id. 
3 In re Anderson, 2015 WL 5275853, at *1 (Del. Sept. 9, 2015).  We also note that “[i]t is within 
the discretion of the Department of Correction to apply for modification of an inmate’s sentence 
under Section 4217.”  King v. State, 2015 WL 317128, at *2 (Del. Jan 23, 2015) (affirming 
Superior Court’s denial of petition for writ of mandamus where movant did not show 
Department of Correction had duty to declare him to eligible for sentence modification under 
Section 4217 or submit a Section 4217 application).  
4 
 
Having carefully considered the parties’ positions on appeal and the record below, 
we conclude that the Superior Court did not err in denying Schmidt’s motion for 
modification of sentence.4   
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is 
GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                                 
4 See, e.g., Morgan v. State, 2012 WL 3115539, at *1 (Del. July 31, 2012) (affirming Superior 
Court’s denial of motion for sentence modification and recognizing it is well-settled that 
rehabilitation efforts do not constitute extraordinary circumstances).