Title: Buchanan v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 357, 2016
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: December 12, 2016

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DAVID J. BUCHANAN, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 357, 2016 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§ 
§  Cr. ID No. 0801031784 
§   
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: October 24, 2016  
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
December 12, 2016 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
This 12th day of December 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, David J. Buchanan, filed this appeal from a Superior 
Court order denying his motion for modification of probation.  The State of 
Delaware has filed a motion to affirm the judgment below on the ground that it is 
manifest on the face of Buchanan’s opening brief that his appeal is without merit.  
We agree and affirm. 
(2) 
The record reflects that, in September 2008, a Superior Court jury 
convicted Buchanan of Burglary in the Third Degree, Resisting Arrest, Criminal 
2 
 
Contempt, three counts of Possession of a Firearm by a Person Prohibited, and two 
counts of Carrying a Concealed Deadly Weapon.  Buchanan was sentenced to nine 
years of non-suspended Level V incarceration, followed by decreasing levels of 
supervision.  On appeal, this Court affirmed all of Buchanan’s convictions, except 
for the Burglary in the Third Degree conviction.1  On May 21, 2014, after 
Buchanan had filed numerous, unsuccessful motions challenging his convictions, 
we directed the Clerk of the Court to refuse any filing from Buchanan unless the 
filing was accompanied by the required filing fee or the filing was accompanied by 
a completed motion to proceed in forma pauperis, with the necessary certifications, 
and that motion was first granted by the Court.2 
(3) 
On March 28, 2016, Buchanan filed a motion to modify his sentence.  
Buchanan asked the Superior Court to terminate his curfew or end his probation so 
he could begin working as a commercial truck driver.  The State opposed 
modification until there was verification of Buchanan’s employment.  Buchanan 
subsequently filed a letter indicating that while he was disqualified from working 
for the initial trucking company he had identified in his motion, he had found 
another job that would still require termination of his curfew or probation.  The 
Superior Court denied the motion.  This appeal followed. 
                                                 
1 Buchanan v. State, 981 A.2d 1098 (Del. 2009). 
2 Buchanan v. State, 2014 WL 2159325, at *1 (Del. May 21, 2014). 
3 
 
(4) 
On July 12, 2016, this Court issued a notice directing Buchanan to 
show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with 
the May 21, 2014 order.  Buchanan filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis 
and responded to the notice to show cause.  After the State indicated it was their 
position that Buchanan had complied with the Court’s May 21, 2014 order, the 
notice to show cause was discharged. 
(5) 
We review the Superior Court’s denial of a motion under Superior 
Court Criminal Rule 35(b) for abuse of discretion.3  To the extent the claim 
involves a question of law, we review the claim de novo.4   Under Rule 35(b), the 
Superior Court “may ... reduce the fine or term or conditions of partial confinement 
or probation, at any time.”  
(6) 
In his opening brief, Buchanan does not make any arguments 
regarding the impact of his probation terms on his search for employment.  Instead, 
he rehashes and reframes claims he has previously made against his convictions 
and argues that his convictions should be vacated.  These claims are without merit.  
(7) 
First, Rule 61, not Rule 35, is the exclusive remedy for a person 
seeking to set aside a judgment of conviction.5  Second, we will not revisit claims 
                                                 
3 State v. Lewis, 797 A.2d 1198, 1202 (Del. 2002).  
4 Weber v. State, 2015 WL 2329160, at *1 (Del. May 12, 2015). 
5 Super. Ct. 61(a)(2). 
4 
 
that we have previously addressed and rejected.6  We conclude that the Superior 
Court did not err in finding Buchanan’s sentence remained reasonable and 
appropriate and denying termination of Buchanan’s curfew or probation so he 
could take a position that required him to be gone for days.  As the Superior Court 
noted, it had already granted Buchanan’s request for a Level III interstate transfer 
so he could relocate to care for his mother in Florida.  We remind Buchanan that he 
is barred from litigating claims in this Court that have been raised or disposed of 
before in any court.    
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/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                                 
6 See, e.g., Buchanan v. State, 2011 WL 3452148, at *2-3 (Del. Aug. 8, 2011) (rejecting 
Buchanan’s attacks on protection from abuse order, search of property, and traffic stop and 
affirming denial of Buchanan’s first Rule 61 motion); State v. Buchanan, 2014 WL 704408, at *3 
(Del. Super. Ct. Feb. 14, 2014) (holding arguments based upon protection from abuse order were 
barred as previously adjudicated under Rule 61), aff’d, 2014 WL 2159325 (Del. May 21, 2014).