Title: Conover v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 453, 2004
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: March 10, 2005

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
ADOLPH A. CONOVER,                      
           
Defendant Below- 
Appellant,   
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
     
 
 
     
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
   No. 453, 2004 
 
   Court Below---Superior Court 
   of the State of Delaware, 
   in and for New Castle County  
   Cr. A. Nos. IN99-08-1811; 1782  
                      
 
Submitted: January 7, 2005  
   Decided: March 10, 2005    
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices  
 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 10th day of March 2005, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal and 
the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Adolph A. Conover, filed an appeal from the 
Superior Court’s October 2, 2004 order denying his motion for reduction of 
sentence pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b).  We find no merit to the 
appeal.  Accordingly, we affirm.   
 
 
-2-
 
(2) 
On May 13, 2004, Conover was sentenced at a contested violation of 
probation (“VOP”) hearing to a total of 1 year of incarceration at Level V, to be 
suspended after 6 months for decreasing levels of probation.1     
 
(3) 
In this appeal, Conover claims that the Superior Court erred as a 
matter of law by denying his motion for sentence reduction on the ground that the 
motion was untimely. 
 
(4) 
This Court will not interfere with the Superior Court’s denial of a 
sentence reduction motion unless it can be demonstrated that the sentence imposed 
was beyond the maximum authorized by law or was the result of an abuse of 
discretion by the sentencing judge.2  Conover does not argue here, nor did he argue 
in the Superior Court, that his sentence is beyond the maximum authorized by 
law.3 
 
(5) 
Even assuming that Conover is correct that his motion for sentence 
reduction was timely filed, we, nevertheless, find no evidence that the sentence 
exceeded the statutorily-authorized limits and, therefore, find no abuse of 
discretion on the part of the Superior Court in denying Conover’s sentence 
reduction motion.   
                                                 
1 Conover was found to have violated his probationary sentences in connection with his 
convictions of Escape After Conviction and Misdemeanor Theft.  
2 Mayes v. State, 604 A.2d 839, 842 (Del. 1992). 
3 His argument in the Superior Court was that he has two close relatives in poor health who need 
his help and that he already has served a substantial amount of time in prison. 
 
 
-3-
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice