Title: Hubbard v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 458, 2011
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: October 20, 2011

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ABDULLAH G. HUBBARD,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
           Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 458, 2011 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID Nos. 9912014861  
§                      9905018910 
§ 
§ 
 
                                         Submitted: October 4, 2011 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: October 20, 2011 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 20th day of October 2011, 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 defendant-appellant, Abdullah G. Hubbard, filed an appeal 
from the Superior Court’s August 8, 2011 order denying his second motion 
for sentence modification pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b).  
The plaintiff-appellee, the State of Delaware, has moved to affirm the 
 
2
Superior Court’s judgment on the ground that it is manifest on the face of 
the opening brief that the appeal is without merit.1  We agree and affirm. 
 
(2) 
The record before us reflects that, in February 2002, Hubbard 
pleaded guilty to Robbery in the First Degree.  He was sentenced to 10 years 
at Level V incarceration, to be suspended after 4 years for decreasing levels 
of supervision.  In April 2009, Hubbard filed his first motion for sentence 
modification.  This Court affirmed the Superior Court’s denial of that 
motion.2  Hubbard filed a second motion for sentence modification in July 
2011.  It is from the Superior Court’s denial of that motion that he now 
appeals. 
 
(3) 
In his appeal, Hubbard claims that he has been diagnosed with 
glaucoma and has been declared legally blind.  He contends that his Level 
IV sentence should, therefore, be downgraded to Level III probation and that 
he should not be required to pay any costs or fines.   
 
(4) 
Rule 35(b) provides that a sentence may be modified within 90 
days after it is imposed.  It also provides that untimely motions for sentence 
modification may be considered only in “extraordinary circumstances” and 
that “repetitive” motions will not be entertained.  Because the due date for 
the filing of Hubbard’s Rule 35(a) motion was May of 2002, his present 
                                                 
1 Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
2 Hubbard v. State, Del. Supr., No. 344, 2009, Holland, J. (Sept. 21, 2009). 
 
3
motion is clearly untimely.  Moreover, because Hubbard has provided no 
support for his claim that he has been declared legally blind, his claim of 
“extraordinary circumstances” must fail.  While inmates with serious 
medical conditions may have their sentences reduced under Del. Code Ann. 
tit. 11, §4217, certification from the Department of Correction that release of 
the inmate will not “constitute a substantial risk to the community or the 
defendant . . . .” is required.  In the absence of any such certification, 
Hubbard’s motion was properly denied by the Superior Court. 
 
(5) 
It is manifest on the face of the opening brief that this appeal is 
without merit because the issues presented on appeal are controlled by 
settled Delaware law and, to the extent that judicial discretion is implicated, 
there was no abuse of discretion. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State of Delaware’s 
motion to affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is 
AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice