Title: Ferguson v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 582, 2002
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: February 27, 2003

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
JAMAL FERGUSON,
Defendant Below-
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF DELAWARE,
Plaintiff Below-
Appellee.
§
§
§  No. 582, 2002
§
§
§  Court Below—Superior Court
§  of the State of Delaware,
§  in and for Kent County
§  Cr.A. Nos. IK01-01-0560 
§                   IK01-11-0052
§
Submitted: January 10, 2003
  Decided:   February 27, 2003
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and HOLLAND, Justices
O R D E R
This 27th day of February 2003, upon consideration of the briefs on
appeal and the record below, it appears to the Court that:
(1)
The defendant-appellant, Jamal Ferguson, filed an appeal from the
Superior Court’s September 11, 2002 order denying his motion for sentence
modification pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b).  We find no merit
to the appeal.  Accordingly, we AFFIRM.
(2)
On March 5, 2001, Ferguson was indicted on 3 drug charges and,
on December 3, 2001, was indicted on 4 additional drug charges.  On May 30,
2002, Ferguson pleaded guilty to one count of Attempted Possession with
1Downer v. State, 543 A.2d 309, 312-13 (Del. 1988).
-2-
Intent to Deliver Marijuana and one count of Maintaining a Dwelling for
Keeping Controlled Substances.  The remaining charges were dismissed.
Ferguson was sentenced to a total of 7 years incarceration at Level V, to be
suspended after 2 years for 2 years Level III probation, to be followed by an
additional 2 years of Level II probation.  While at Level V, Ferguson was to
complete the Greentree drug program.  Approximately 2 ½ months after his
pleas were entered, Ferguson filed a motion for sentence modification in the
Superior Court requesting that he be assigned to Level IV work release or home
confinement following his completion of the Level V Greentree drug program.
 
(3)
In this appeal, Ferguson claims that the Superior Court: a) abused
its discretion by denying his motion for sentence modification; and b)
prejudiced his ability to present his claim on appeal by rendering its decision
on a pre-printed form.
(4)
Ferguson’s claim that the Superior Court abused its discretion by
denying his motion is without merit.  Ferguson received a substantial benefit
from his May 30, 2002 plea agreement.1  There is no evidence that his plea,
entered only 2 ½ months before his motion was filed, was not entered
-3-
knowingly and voluntarily.  Moreover, there is no evidence that the Superior
Court’s use of a pre-printed form to render its decision in any way prevented
Ferguson from fully presenting his claims on appeal.  Any alleged error on the
part of the Superior Court was, thus, harmless.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the
Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
   s/Joseph T. Walsh
   Justice