IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE WILLIAM BARRALL, Defendant Below, Appellant,

v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. § § No. 20, 2019 § § Court Below—Superior Court § of the State of Delaware § § Cr. ID No. 1201003157 (S) § § § § Submitted: March 7, 2019 Decided: April 23, 2019

Before VAUGHN , SEITZ , and TRAYNOR , Justices.

ORDER 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, William Barrall, filed this appeal from the Superior

Court’s denial of his motion for sentence re view. The State has moved to affirm the judgment below on the ground that it is ma nifest on the face of Barrall’s opening brief that his appeal is without merit. We ag ree and affirm. (2) In 2012, Barrall was indicted for twen ty-five counts of Dealing in Child Pornography. He pleaded guilty to four of the counts, in exchange for which the State agreed to dismiss the remaining charge s. For each of the four counts to which Barrall pleaded guilty, the Superior Court sentenced hi m to twenty-five years of2 Level V incarceration, suspe nded after three years for te n years of probation. The court ordered that the probationary terms we re to run consecutively, resulting in a total sentence of twelve years of incarcer ation followed by forty years of probation. (3) In 2012 and 2013, Barrall filed motions for sentence modification. The Superior Court denied both motions. Ba rrall appealed the denial of the second motion, and this Court affirmed. 1 In 2018, Barrall filed a motion for sentence review. Citing Superior Court Rule 35(b), the Supe rior Court denied the motion because the court found no extraordinary circumstances warranting review of the sentence more than ninety days after the sentence wa s imposed. This appeal followed. (4) Barrall’s motion challe nged, on various ground s, the length and conditions of his probation. Rule 35(b) provides that the Superior Court will consider a defendant’s application for a reduction of sentence “made more than 90 days after the imposition of sentence only in extraordinary circumstances.” It also provides, however, that the Superior C ourt may “reduce the fine or term or conditions of partial confinement or prob ation, at any time. ” Because Barrall’s motion sought a reduction of the term of probation and modification of the conditions of probation, the State concedes that the time limitation established in Rule 35(b) does not bar Barrall’s motion.

1 Barrall v. State , 2013 WL 4538593 (Del. Aug. 23, 2013).3 (5) Nevertheless, we affirm the Superior Court’s denial of the motion on the alternative grounds that the motion was repetitive. 2 Rule 35(b) provides that “[t]he court will not consid er repetitive requests for reduc tion of sentence.” Barrall has brought two previous motions for sent ence modification, both of which were denied. “Rule 35(b) does not set forth any exception to the repetitive motion bar.” 3 “A motion is ‘repetitive’ as that term is us ed in Rule 35(b) when it is preceded by an earlier Rule 35(b) motion, even if the subsequent motion raises new arguments.” 4 Barrall’s motion was repetitive and ther efore was appropriately denied. 5 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Affirm is GRANTED and the judgment of th e Superior Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT: /s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. Justice

2 See Unitrin, Inc. v. Am. Gen. Corp. , 651 A.2d 1361 (Del. 1995) (stati ng that this Court may affirm a trial court’s decision “on the basis of a di fferent rationale than that which was articulated by the trial court”). See also Teat v. State , 2011 WL 4839042 (Del. Oc t. 12, 2011) (affirming a Superior Court order denying a motion for senten ce modification as untimely on the “independent and alternative grounds that the motion was repetitive”). 3 State v. Culp , 152 A.3d 141, 144 (Del. 2016). 4 Id. 5 With respect to Barrall’s arguments concerning the conditions of his probation, after he begins serving probation, Barrall may be able to work w ith the Department of Co rrection to “attempt to tailor a reasonable set of prot ective provisions that would allow him to have some greater flexibility in these important areas, but in a way that is safe for children and the public,” and to petition the Superior Court, as necessary, to seek modification of the conditions of his probation. Wilkerson v. State , 2017 WL 5450747, at *3 n.10 (Del. Nov. 13, 2017).