Title: Ayotte v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 108, 2004
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: October 26, 2004

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
DAVID AYOTTE,                       
           
Defendant Below- 
Appellant,   
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
     
 
 
     
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
   No. 108, 2004 
 
   Court Below---Superior Court 
   of the State of Delaware, 
   in and for Kent County  
   Cr. A. No. VK01-09-0083-01 
                      
 
Submitted: August 27, 2004  
   Decided: October 26, 2004    
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices  
 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 26th day of October 2004, upon consideration of the briefs of the 
parties and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, David Ayotte, filed an appeal from the 
Superior 
Court’s 
January 
21, 
2004 
order 
denying 
his 
motion 
for 
modification/reduction of sentence pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 
35(b), and his motions for an evidentiary hearing and appointment of counsel.  We 
find no merit to the appeal.  Accordingly, we affirm.  
 
(2) 
In October 2001, Ayotte was indicted on two counts of Assault in the 
First Degree and one count of Possession of a Deadly Weapon During the 
Commission of a Felony.  In April 2002, Ayotte pleaded guilty to the sole charge 
 
 
-2-
of Assault in the Second Degree.  The remaining charges were dismissed.  As part 
of the plea agreement, Ayotte agreed to pay restitution to the assault victim.   
 
(3) 
In August 2002, the Superior Court modified Ayotte’s sentencing 
order to require restitution to the victim in the total amount of $5,710.31, as 
awarded by the Delaware Violent Crimes Compensation Board.1  Ayotte did not 
file a direct appeal of his conviction or sentence.  In October 2003, Ayotte was 
found to have committed a violation of probation (“VOP”).  He did not file a direct 
appeal of his VOP sentence.     
 
(4) 
 In this appeal, Ayotte claims that the Superior Court abused its 
discretion: a) by not granting his motion for sentence modification/reduction on the 
ground that his due process rights were violated during the VOP hearing; (b) by 
not scheduling an evidentiary hearing regarding the victim’s alleged physical 
injuries and medical problems as a result of the assault; and c) by denying his 
motion for the appointment of counsel. 
 
(5) 
As for Ayotte’s first claim, appellate review of criminal sentences in 
Delaware is limited to a determination of whether the sentence is within the 
statutory limits.2  There is no evidence that Ayotte’s VOP sentence exceeds either 
the Level V time originally imposed or the authorized statutory limits.  Moreover, 
                                                 
1 The Board awarded the victim $4,748.21 for her medical bills and approved an additional 36 
sessions of mental health counseling. 
2 Siple v. State, 701 A.2d 79, 83 (Del. 1997). 
 
 
-3-
it is apparent that Ayotte is attempting to substitute a motion for sentence 
modification for a timely-filed appeal, which he is not permitted to do.3   
 
(6) 
As for Ayotte’s next two claims, we also find them to be without 
merit.  Because the Superior Court based its award of restitution on the victim’s 
medical bills plus the cost of additional counseling, an amount that was 
undisputed, there was no need for an evidentiary hearing.  Moreover, Ayotte failed 
to demonstrate a need for counsel with respect to the issue of restitution.  
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
                                                 
3 Matushefske v. Herlihy, 214 A.2d 883, 885 (Del. 1996).