Title: Jones v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 205, 2004
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: October 7, 2004

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
CHARLES JONES,
§
§
No.  205, 2004
Defendant Below,
§
Appellant,
§
Court Below–Superior Court
§
of the State of Delaware, 
v.
§
in and for New Castle County 
§
in IN01-01-1082.
STATE OF DELAWARE,
§
§
Plaintiff Below,
§
Appellee.
§
Def.  ID No.  0012003111
Submitted:  July 6, 2004
Decided: October 7, 2004
BEFORE STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices.
O R D E R
This 7  day of October 2004, upon consideration of the appellant’s
th
opening brief and the State of Delaware’s motion to affirm, it appears to the
Court that:
(1)
The appellant, Charles Jones, filed this appeal from the Superior
Court’s denial of his motion for modification of sentence.  The State of
Delaware has filed a motion to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment on the
ground that it is manifest on the face of Jones’ opening brief that this appeal is
without merit.  We agree and affirm.
See House Bill 210, 74 Del.  Laws, Ch.  106 (2003) (codified as Del.  Code Ann.
1
tit.  16, § 4753A(a0(2)(a)).
See State v.  Ismaaeel, 820 A.2d 644 (Del.  Super.  2004) (concluding that H.B. 210
2
applied only to offenses committed after June 30, 2003, the effective date of the legislation).
2
(2)
In December 2001, Jones pleaded guilty in the Superior Court to
Trafficking in Cocaine (5 to 50 grams) and Possession of a Firearm During the
Commission of a Felony.  The Superior Court immediately sentenced Jones, on
the drug trafficking offense, to fifteen years at Level V suspended, after serving
a minimum mandatory three-year term of imprisonment, for probation.    
(3)
In 2003, the General Assembly amended the drug trafficking
statute to, in part, reduce to two years the three-year minimum mandatory
prison term that had applied to Jones.   Thereafter, Jones requested a sentence
1
modification, claiming that the ameliorative sentencing provisions of the
amended statute should apply retroactively to his sentence.  
(4)
By order dated April 15, 2004, the Superior Court denied Jones’
request for a sentence modification.  Relying on the January 13, 2004 decision
in State v.  Ismaaeel, the Superior Court ruled that the ameliorative sentencing
provisions of the amended drug trafficking statute did not apply retroactively
to Jones’ sentence.   This appeal followed.
2
Ismaaeel v.  State, 2004 WL 1587040 (Del.  Supr.).
3
3
(5)
By Order dated July 9, 2004, this Court affirmed the Superior
Court’s judgment in State v.  Ismaaeel, thereby rejecting the argument that the
amended drug trafficking statute could be applied retroactively.   Accordingly,
3
we find no error in the Superior Court’s denial of Jones’ motion for
modification of sentence.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is
GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Myron T. Steele
Chief Justice