Title: Seeney v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 207, 2004
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: October 7, 2004

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
RONALD SEENEY,
§
§
No.  207, 2004
Defendant Below,
§
Appellant,
§
Court Below–Superior Court
§
of the State of Delaware, 
v.
§
in and for New Castle County 
§
in IN97-10-0017.
STATE OF DELAWARE,
§
§
Plaintiff Below,
§
Appellee.
§
Def.  ID No.  9709019709
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, Ronald Seeney, 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 Seeney’s opening brief that this appeal
is without merit.  We agree and affirm.
Del.  Code Ann.  tit. 16, § 4751.
1
Del.  Code Ann.  tit 16, § 4763(a)(3).
2
See State v.  Ismaaeel, 820 A.2d 644 (Del.  Super.  2004) (concluding that H.B. 210
3
applied only to offenses committed after June 30, 2003, the effective date of the legislation).
2
(2)
In February 1998, Seeney pleaded guilty, pursuant to Superior
Court Criminal Rule 11(e)(1)(c), to Possession with Intent to Deliver Cocaine.1
In accordance with the plea agreement, the State agreed to recommend fifteen
years at Level V, the minimum mandatory term for a subsequent offender, and
the Superior Court ordered a pre-sentence investigation.  On May 1, 1998, the
Superior Court sentenced Seeney to thirty years at Level V, fifteen years of
which was minimum mandatory.  
2
(3)
In October 2003, Seeney filed a motion for modification of
sentence.  Seeney sought a sentence modification on the basis that House Bill
210 had reduced the fifteen-year minimum mandatory prison term that had
applied to Seeney. 
(4)
By order dated April 15, 2004, the Superior Court denied Seeney’s
sentence modification motion.  Relying on its January 13, 2004 decision in
State v.  Ismaaeel, the Court concluded that the ameliorative sentencing
provisions of House Bill 210 did not apply retroactively to Seeney’s sentence.3
This appeal followed.
Ismaaeel v.  State, 2004 WL 1587040 (Del.  Supr.).
4
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 sentencing law could be applied retroactively.   Accordingly, we find
4
no error in the Superior Court’s denial of Seeney’s 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