Title: Callahan v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 232, 2016
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: August 22, 2016

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JOSHUA C. CALLAHAN, 
 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 232, 2016 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID No. 0911003857  
§   
§ 
Submitted: June 28, 2016 
Decided: 
August 22, 2016 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND and SEITZ, Justices. 
 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 22nd day of August 2016, upon consideration of the appellant‟s 
opening brief, the appellee‟s motion to affirm, and the record below, it appears to 
the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Joshua C. Callahan, filed this appeal from the Superior 
Court‟s denial of his motion for reduction of sentence.  The State of Delaware filed 
a motion to affirm the judgment below on the ground that it was manifest on the 
face of Callahan‟s opening brief that the appeal was without merit.  We agree and 
affirm. 
(2) 
The record reflects that, on May 5, 2010, Callahan pled guilty to 
Possession of Firearm During the Commission of a Felony, Robbery in the First 
 
2 
Degree, Conspiracy in the Second Degree, and two counts of Reckless 
Endangering in the First Degree.  Callahan was sentenced to thirty-six years of 
Level V incarceration, suspended after eleven years and successful completion of 
the Greentree Program for decreasing levels of supervision.  Callahan did not 
appeal the Superior Court‟s judgment. 
(3) 
On March 28, 2016, Callahan filed his fifth motion for modification 
or reduction of sentence.  The Superior Court denied the motion, finding that the 
sentence imposed was reasonable and appropriate and that there were no 
extraordinary circumstances to support consideration of Callahan‟s untimely 
motion.  This appeal followed. 
(4) 
This Court reviews the Superior Court‟s denial of a motion for 
reduction of sentence for abuse of discretion.1  Under Superior Court Criminal 
Rule 35(b), a motion for reduction of sentence that is not filed within ninety days 
of sentencing, like Callahan‟s motion, will only be considered in extraordinary 
circumstances or under 11 Del. C. § 4217, which permits sentence reduction if the 
Department of Correction files an application for good cause shown and certifies 
that the offender does not constitute a substantial risk to the community or himself.  
Rule 35(b) also provides that the Superior Court will not consider repetitive 
requests for sentence modification.   
                                                 
1 State v. Lewis, 797 A.2d 1198, 1202 (Del. 2002). 
 
3 
(5) 
In his opening brief, Callahan argues that the Superior Court should 
have considered his exceptional rehabilitation efforts in prison as an extraordinary 
circumstance that justified reduction of his sentence.  “[P]articipation in 
educational and rehabilitative programs, while commendable, does not, in and of 
itself, constitute „extraordinary circumstances‟ for purposes of Rule 35(b).”2  In 
addition, Callahan‟s motion for reduction of sentence was repetitive under Rule 
35(b).  The Superior Court did not err therefore in denying Callahan‟s motion for 
reduction of sentence.         
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is 
GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT:  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice  
 
                                                 
2 DeShields v. State, 2012 WL 1072298, at *1 (Del. Mar. 30, 2012) (citing Morgan v. State, 2009 
WL 1279107, at *1 (Del. May 11, 2009)).