Title: Hollis v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 87, 2003
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: May 27, 2003

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
WILLIAM A. HOLLIS, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 87, 2003 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr.A. Nos. IN94-09-0215;0218; 
§                               0220;1228 
§ 
 
Submitted:  April 2, 2003 
Decided:   May 27, 2003 
 
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, BERGER and STEELE, Justices 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 27th day of May 2003, 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, William A. Hollis, filed an appeal from the 
Superior Court’s January 21, 2003 order denying his motion for reduction of 
sentence pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b).  The plaintiff-appellee, 
the State of Delaware, has moved to affirm the judgment of the Superior Court on 
 
2
the ground that it is manifest on the face of Hollis’ opening brief that the appeal is 
without merit.1  We agree and AFFIRM. 
 
(2) 
In September 1994, Hollis was charged with multiple robbery and 
weapon offenses.  In February 1995, Hollis pleaded guilty to four counts of 
Robbery in the First Degree and the remaining charges were dismissed.  In his plea 
agreement, Hollis agreed that he was eligible for sentencing as an habitual 
offender.2  In April 1995, the Superior Court sentenced Hollis as an habitual 
offender to a total of 21 years incarceration at Level V, to be suspended after 12 
years for decreasing levels of probation.  The Superior Court denied Hollis’ 
motions for sentence reduction once in 1995 and twice in 2002.  The most recent 
denial resulted in the instant appeal. 
 
(3) 
In his appeal, Hollis claims that: a) the Superior Court’s denial of his 
motion on the basis of his “lengthy criminal history” constituted an abuse of 
discretion because there was no evidence of his prior record presented at the guilty 
plea hearing; and b) the Superior Court’s order denying his motion improperly 
failed to set forth the criteria necessary to succeed on a motion for sentence 
reduction.  
                                                          
 
1SUPR. CT. R. 25(a). 
2DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 4214(a). 
 
3
 
(4) 
Hollis’ appeal is unavailing.  We find that the Superior Court did not 
abuse its discretion when it denied Hollis’ third motion for sentence reduction, 
although we affirm the denial on grounds different from those articulated by the 
Superior Court.3  As a procedural matter, Hollis’ motion was untimely and he 
failed to demonstrate any “extraordinary circumstances” justifying consideration of 
the motion.4  Moreover, Hollis’ motion was repetitive, which also precluded its 
consideration by the Superior Court.5  Hollis, finally, has provided no legal 
authority for his claim that the Superior Court’s order should have included the 
criteria for a successful motion for sentence reduction.   
 
(5) 
It is manifest on the face of Hollis’ 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, clearly there 
was no abuse of discretion. 
                                                          
 
3Unitrin, Inc. v. Am. Gen. Corp., 651 A.2d 1361, 1390 (Del. 1995). 
4SUPER. CT. CRIM. R. 35(b). 
5Id. 
 
4
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 25(a), the State of Delaware’s motion to affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment 
of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice