Title: Fisher v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 326, 2015
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: July 19, 2016

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
WESLEY J. FISHER, 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 326, 2015 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below—Superior Court  
 
 
 
 
 
  
§ 
of the State of Delaware 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
Cr. ID No. 1110018244 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Submitted: May 20, 2016 
Decided: 
July 19, 2016 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND and SEITZ, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 19th day of July 2016, upon consideration of the appellant’s opening 
brief and the appellee’s motion to affirm, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Wesley J. Fisher, filed this appeal from the Superior 
Court’s denial of his motion for resentencing.  The State of Delaware has moved to 
affirm the 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. 
(2) 
Following his guilty plea to two counts of Drug Dealing, Fisher was 
sentenced on March 5, 2012 to two consecutive four-year terms of unsuspended 
Level V incarceration.  In June 2015, Fisher filed a “motion for resentencing under 
 
2 
 
House Bill 312” asking the Superior Court to resentence him to concurrent terms 
of incarceration under a 2014 amendment of 11 Del. C. § 3901(d).1  The Superior 
Court denied the motion, ruling that the sentence was appropriate for all the 
reasons stated at the time of sentencing and that the motion was time-barred.  This 
appeal followed. 
(3) 
Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b) provides that the court may 
modify a sentence of imprisonment on a motion made within ninety days after the 
sentence is imposed.2  When a motion is filed more than ninety days after 
sentencing, the court can consider the motion only in extraordinary circumstances.3  
The denial of a motion under Rule 35(b) is reviewed for abuse of discretion.4      
 
(4) 
Here, the Superior Court did not abuse its discretion when denying 
Fisher’s motion for resentencing.  The amendment of § 3901(d), which gives 
judges the discretion to impose concurrent terms of imprisonment for certain 
crimes, does not apply retroactively to sentences imposed before July 9, 2014, the 
effective date of the amendment.5  Fisher was sentenced in 2012. 
                                          
 
1 See 11 Del. C. § 3901 (governing term of imprisonment) (Supp. 2016). 
2 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b). 
3 Id. 
4 State v. Lewis, 797 A.2d 1198, 1202 (Del. 2002). 
5 Fountain v. State, __ A.3d __, 2016 WL 2927750, at *4-5 (Del. May 16, 2016). 
 
3 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is 
GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT:  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice