Title: Reynolds v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 196, 2016
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: October 24, 2016

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
CANDIDO REYNOLDS,  
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 196, 2016 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below—Superior Court of the 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
State of Delaware 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
Cr. ID Nos. 1302015545 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
 
 
1303009388 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Submitted: August 26, 2016 
Decided: 
October 24, 2016 
 
Before HOLLAND, VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 24th day of October 2016, upon consideration of the appellant’s opening 
brief, the appellee’s motion to affirm, and the Superior Court record, it appears to 
the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The appellant, Candido Reynolds, filed this appeal from the Superior 
Court’s denial of his motion for modification of sentence under Superior Court 
Criminal Rule 35(b).  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) 
On March 25, 2014, immediately following his guilty plea to Reckless 
Endangering in the First Degree and Tier 4 Possession of Cocaine, Reynolds was 
2 
 
declared a habitual offender under 11 Del. C. § 4214(a) and was sentenced as such 
to five years at Level V for Reckless Endangering.  For the drug offense, Reynolds 
was sentenced to fifteen years at Level V suspended after five years for eighteen 
months of Level III probation. 
(3) 
On February 29, 2016, Reynolds filed a motion for modification of 
sentence under Rule 35(b).  By order dated March 11, 2016, the Superior Court 
denied the motion.  This appeal followed.  We review the denial of a motion for 
modification of sentence for abuse of discretion.1 
(4) 
On appeal, Reynolds argues that his two consecutive five-year Level 
V terms should be modified to run concurrently as now permitted under 11 Del. C. 
§ 3901(d).2  His claim is without merit.  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.3  Reynolds was sentenced on March 25, 2014.  
Under these circumstances, the Superior Court’s denial of Reynolds’ motion for 
modification of sentence was not an abuse of discretion.      
 
 
                                                          
 
1 State v. Lewis, 797 A.2d 1198, 1202 (Del. 2002). 
2 11 Del.  C. § 3901(d) (Supp. 2016). 
3 Fountain v. State, 139 A.3d 837 (Del. 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/ Karen L. Valihura 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice