Title: Twyman v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 246, 2009
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: November 3, 2009

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
TERRELL TWYMAN,  
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 246, 2009 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below—Superior Court  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware in and 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
for New Castle County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
Cr. ID No. 0006003916  
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: August 19, 2009 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
November 3, 2009 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices.     
 
O R D E R 
 
This 3rd day of November 2009, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief and the appellee’s motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 
25(a), it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The appellant, Terrell Twyman, filed this appeal from the Superior 
Court’s December 4, 2008 denial of his motion for modification of sentence under 
Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b) (“Rule 35(b)”).  The appellee, State of 
Delaware, has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment on the ground that it 
 
2
is manifest on the face of the opening brief that the appeal is without merit.1  We 
agree and affirm. 
 
(2) 
In September 2001, Twyman pled guilty to charges of Murder in the 
Second Degree and Possession of a Firearm during the Commission of a Felony.  
On March 15, 2002, Twyman was sentenced to thirty years at Level V suspended 
after twenty-two years for one year at Level IV and five years at Level III. 
 
(3) 
On April 5, 2002, Twyman filed a timely motion for modification of 
sentence pursuant to Rule 35(b).2  Twyman sought a modification of sentence 
based on his need for rehabilitation, the length of his sentence, the time he had 
already served, and the needs of his family.  By order dated April 16, 2002, the 
Superior Court denied the motion on the bases that the sentence was appropriate, 
and that Twyman had not demonstrated that a reduction or modification of 
sentence was warranted. 
 
(4) 
On October 16, 2008, Twyman filed a second, untimely, motion for 
modification of sentence.  Again, Twyman sought a modification of sentence based 
on the length of his sentence, his need for rehabilitation, and the needs of his 
family. 
                                          
 
1 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
2 See Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b) (providing that “[t]he court may reduce a sentence of 
imprisonment on a motion made within ninety days after the sentence is imposed.”). 
 
3
 
(5) 
By order dated December 4, 2008, the Superior Court denied 
Twyman’s second motion for modification of sentence.  The Superior Court 
concluded that the sentence was imposed pursuant to a plea agreement and was 
otherwise appropriate, and that the untimely motion was without justification3 and 
repetitive.4  On appeal, Twyman asks this Court to consider whether the sentence 
“continues to be appropriate” in view of his good conduct and the progress he has 
made with rehabilitation. 
 
(6) 
This Court reviews the Superior Court’s denial of a motion for 
modification of sentence under Rule 35(b) for abuse of discretion.5  Having 
carefully reviewed the parties’ positions on appeal, we can discern no error or 
abuse of discretion in the Superior Court’s denial of Twyman’s second motion for 
modification of sentence as untimely filed without justification and repetitive. 
 
NOW, THERFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is 
GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                          
 
3 See id. (providing that “[t]he court will consider an application made more then 90 days after 
the imposition of sentence only in extraordinary circumstances or pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 
4217.”). 
4 See id. (providing that “[t]he court will not consider repetitive requests for reduction of 
sentence.”). 
5 Hickman v. State, 2003 WL 22669335 (Del. Supr.) (citing Shy v. State, 246 A.2d 926, 927 (Del. 
1968)).