Title: Shockley v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 222, 2007
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: August 2, 2007

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
RICHARD E. SHOCKLEY, JR., 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 222, 2007 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Kent County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0203023972 
§   
§   
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: May 30, 2007 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: August 2, 2007 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 2nd day of August 2007, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief, the State’s motion to affirm, and the record below, it appears 
to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Richard Shockley, filed this appeal 
from the Superior Court’s order denying his motion for modification of 
sentence.  The State has filed a motion to affirm the judgment below on the 
ground that it is manifest on the face of Shockley’s opening brief that the 
appeal is without merit.  We agree and affirm.   
(2) 
The record reflects that, in March 2003, a Superior Court jury 
found Shockley guilty of attempted third degree burglary, possession of 
 
2 
burglar tools, and criminal mischief.  He was sentenced as an habitual 
offender to a total period of seven and a half years at Level V imprisonment, 
to be suspended after serving five years for decreasing levels of supervision.  
This Court affirmed his convictions and sentence on direct appeal.1   
(3) 
Since that time, Shockley has filed several unsuccessful 
motions seeking various forms of relief, including modification of his 
sentence.  Shockley filed his latest motion for modification of sentence on 
April 12, 2007.  He argued that the Department of Correction had violated 
the terms of the Superior Court’s sentencing order by sending him to the 
Greentree Program for drug treatment, instead of the Key Program, which 
was specified in the Superior Court’s sentencing order.  As a result of the 
DOC’s failure to place him in the Key Program, Shockley contends that he 
will not be credited with having completed prior drug treatment and thus 
will be required to spend 90 days at Level IV Crest instead of 30 days.  
Shockley requested the Superior Court to modify his sentence to substitute 
the Greentree Program for the Key Program and to suspend the Level IV 
Crest portion of his sentence for Level III probation.  The Superior Court 
denied Shockley’s motion on the ground that it was time-barred and because 
a reduction or modification of sentence was not warranted. 
                                                          
 
1 Shockley v. State, 2004 WL 1790198 (Del. 2004). 
 
3 
(4) 
In his opening brief on appeal, Shockley contends that a 
modification of sentence is warranted due to extraordinary circumstances.  
Shockley asserts that he has Hepatitis-C and is being denied treatment 
because he has less than one year left to serve at Level V incarceration.  This 
issue, however, was not raised to the Superior Court in his sentence 
modification motion. Accordingly, this Court will not consider it for the first 
time on appeal.2  Moreover, Shockley’s factual assertions about his medical 
condition are not supported by any evidence.  Accordingly, under the 
circumstances, we find no abuse of the Superior Court’s discretion in 
denying Shockley’s second motion for modification of sentence because the 
motion was both untimely and repetitive.3 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State's motion to 
affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
                                                          
 
2 See Del. Supr. Ct. R. 8 (2007). 
3 See Briddell v. State, Del. Supr., No. 399, 2002, Holland, J. (Nov. 6, 2002).