IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

EDWIN ANDREW S
,
Defendant Below, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE
,
Plaintiff Below, Appellee. § § No. 289, 2020 § § § § Court Below

– Superior Court § of the State of Delaware § § C r. ID No

. 1407000163 ( N ) § § §

Submitted: April 22, 2021 Decided: June 11 , 2021

Before VAUGHN
, TRAYNOR
, and MONTGOMERY

- REEVES , Justices.

O R D E R
After careful consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the State’s motion
to affirm, and the record below, it appears to the Court that:
(1) Edwin Andrews appeals the Superior Court’ s August 25 , 2020 order
denying his motion for sentence modification . The State has filed a motion to affirm
the judgment below on the groun d that it is manifest on the face of Andrews’ opening
brief that his appeal is without merit. We agree and affirm.
(2) The record reflects that Andrews pleaded guilty in January 2015 to two

counts of second

- degree robbery and one count of possession of a deadly weapon
during the commission of a felony. Following a presentence investigation, the2

Superior Court sentenced Andrews to an aggregate of fifteen years of Level V
incarceration, suspended after twelve years for six months of Level IV supervision.

A ndrews did not appeal his convictions or sentence.
(3) On July 27, 2020 , Andrews filed a motion for sentence modification
under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b) . On August 25, 2020, the Superior Court
denied the motion, finding that Andrews’ sentence re mained appropriate for the
reasons stated at sentencing and that no additional information had been provided to

the court to warrant its reduction or modification. This appeal followed.
(4 ) We review the Superior Court’s denial of a Rule 35(b) motion for abuse

of discretion. 1 Rule 35(b) provides that a motion for sentence modification filed
after ninety days will only be considered in extraordinary circumstances or under 11

Del. C. § 4217. 2 “In order to uphold the finality of judgments, a heavy burden is
placed on the defendant to prove extraordinary circumstances when a Rule 35
motion is filed outside of ninety days of imposition of a sentence.” 3

(5 ) On appeal, Andrews argues, as he did below, that his numerous medical

issues leave him unusually susceptible to the dangers posed by COVID

- 19

.

1 Benge v. State , 101 A.3d 973, 976

- 77 (Del. 2014). 2 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b). 3 State v. Culp , 152 A.3d 141, 145 (Del. 2016) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).3

Andre w s also claims for the first time on appeal that this increased risk implicates
the Eighth Amendment. Andrews’ arguments are unavailing.
( 6 ) First, w e have pr eviously determined that the question of whether the
early release of any particular prisoner is warranted in light of the dangers posed by

COVID

- 19 is best left to the discretion of the Department of Corrections, which may
move for the modification of any offender ’s sentence for good cause

— including the
offender’s medical illness or infirmity

— under 11 Del. C. § 4217

. 4 And Andrews’
reliance on the United States Supreme Court case Helling v. McKinney 5 to support
his Eighth Amendment claim is misplaced. In Helling , the United States Supreme

Court considered whether prison officials could face civil liability for placing a prisoner in a situation that pose s an unreasonable risk of serious damage to his f uture

health ; the case does not relate to or address the reduction or modification of a
prisoner’s sentence

. Accordingly , we conclude that the Superior Court did not abuse
its discretion in denying Andrews’ untimely motion for sentence modification.

4 Johnson v. State , 2020 WL 5626231, at *2 (Del. Sept. 18, 2020) (recognizing that Section 4217 is the statutory vehicle available to a defendant seeking sentence modification for medical

reasons ). 5 509 U.S. 25 (1993).4

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to affirm
is GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:
/s/ Gary F. Tray nor Justice