Title: Jasinski v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 353, 2018
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: December 4, 2018

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
MICHAEL JASINSKI, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 353, 2018 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID No. 0001010220 (N) 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:   October 8, 2018 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
December 4, 2018 
 
Before VAUGHN, SEITZ, and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 
After careful consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the State’s motion 
to affirm, and the record on appeal, the Court concludes that the judgment of the 
Superior Court should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons assigned by 
the Superior Court in its well-reasoned order dated June 11, 2018.  The Superior 
Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion for modification 
of his violation of probation sentence.  To the extent the appellant claims he did not 
violate his probation, he cannot use this appeal to mount an untimely challenge to 
his violation of probation.1    
                                                 
1 See, e.g., Fisher v. State, 2003 WL 1443050, at *2 (Del. Mar. 19, 2003) (holding the appellant’s 
challenge to his violation of probation was untimely and he could not use his appeal from the 
2 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is 
GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                                 
denial of a motion for reduction of sentence to collaterally attack the merits of his violation of 
probation).