Title: Howard v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 328, 2005
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: October 31, 2005

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
TYREASE J. HOWARD, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 328, 2005 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr.A. No. 0108016785 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: August 9, 2005 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
October 31, 2005 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 31st day of October 2005, upon consideration of the opening brief 
and the State’s motion to affirm, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Tyrease Howard, appeals from the 
Superior Court’s denial of his sixth motion for correction of sentence.  The 
State of Delaware has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment on the 
ground that it is manifest on the face of Howard’s opening brief that the 
appeal is without merit.  We agree and affirm. 
(2) 
The record reflects that Howard pled guilty in December 2001 
to one count of trafficking cocaine in violation of 16 Del. C. § 4753A(a)(2)a, 
which carried a three-year minimum mandatory term of imprisonment.  
 
2
Under 11 Del. C. § 6712, the Superior Court deferred sentencing and 
diverted Howard to the boot camp program.  Howard was required, 
however, to successfully complete a six-month program at a boot camp 
facility to be followed by two and a half years of aftercare supervision at 
Level IV or III.  After successfully completing the boot camp portion of the 
program in September 2002, Howard then began the Level IV aftercare.  In 
March 2003, he was charged with violating the conditions of his Level IV 
placement.  In April 2003, the Superior Court found him in violation and 
sentenced him to two years imprisonment, suspended immediately for two 
years of probation.   
 
(3) 
In June 2003, Howard was charged with a second violation.  In 
July 2003, after a hearing, the Superior Court found Howard in violation and 
sentenced him to four and a half years imprisonment, to be suspended after 
serving three years of probation.  Howard did not appeal from this sentence.  
Instead, he filed a motion to modify his sentence, a motion that the Superior 
Court denied.  Thereafter, Howard filed five additional motions to modify 
his sentence, all of which were denied.   
(4) 
In February 2005, the Superior Court held that the sentence 
imposed in April 2003 was illegal because it failed to comply with the 
requirements of the boot camp statute, but that the July 2003 order corrected 
 
3
the illegal sentence imposed in April 2003.  In June 2005, the Superior Court 
denied Howard’s sixth motion to modify his sentence as repetitive.  Howard 
appeals that decision. 
 
(5) 
After careful consideration, we find that the Superior Court’s 
judgment must be affirmed on two grounds.  First, Superior Court Criminal 
Rule 35(b) provides that the Superior Court will not consider repetitive 
motions for reduction or modification of sentence.  Because Howard had 
filed five previous motions to modify his sentence, the Superior Court did 
not abuse its discretion in denying Howard’s most recent motion.   
(6) 
Second, contrary to Howard’s assertion, the July 2003 
sentencing order was not illegal.  Rather, the July 2003 sentencing order 
corrected the illegal sentencing order entered in April 2003.  The boot camp 
statute provides that upon a finding of a violation, the Superior Court must 
“impose not less than the full applicable Level V sentence mandated for the 
offense(s) of which the offender was convicted.”1 Thus, upon finding 
Howard in violation of the conditions of his boot camp aftercare in April 
2003, the Superior Court was statutorily required to impose the full three-
year minimum mandatory sentence that had previously been deferred.2  All 
                                                 
1 11 Del. C. § 6712(h).  
2 Whitner v. State, 762 A.2d 18, 19 (Del. 2000). 
 
4
that the Superior Court’s July 2003 order did was impose the sentence 
required by Delaware law.3 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
                                                 
3 Id.