Title: Stewart v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 204, 2004
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: October 5, 2004

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
PRESTON STEWART,
§
§
No.  204, 2004
Defendant Below,
§
Appellant,
§
Court Below–Superior Court
§
of the State of Delaware, 
v.
§
in and for New Castle County 
§
in IN00-12-0004.
STATE OF DELAWARE,
§
§
Plaintiff Below,
§
Appellee.
§
Def.  ID No.  0006001556
Submitted:  July 6, 2004
Decided: October 5, 2004
BEFORE STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices.
O R D E R
This 5  day of October 2004, upon consideration of the appellant’s
th
opening brief and the State of Delaware’s motion to affirm, it appears to the
Court that:
(1)
The appellant, Preston Stewart, filed this appeal from the Superior
Court’s denial of his motion for reduction of sentence.  The State of Delaware
has filed a motion to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment on the ground that
it is manifest on the face of Stewart’s opening brief that this appeal is without
merit.  We agree and affirm.
Stewart v.  State, 2002 WL 1357943 (Del.  Supr.).
1
See House Bill 210, 74 Del.  Laws, Ch. 106 (2003) (codified at Del.  Code Ann.  tit.
2
16, § 4753A(a)(2)(a)).  
2
(2)
In October 2001, a Superior Court jury convicted Stewart of
Trafficking in Cocaine (5 to 50 grams), Possession with Intent to Deliver
Cocaine and Possession of Marijuana.  On the drug trafficking offense, the
Superior Court sentenced Stewart, on January 25, 2002, to ten years at Level
V suspended, after serving a minimum mandatory three-year prison term, for
decreasing levels of supervision.  On appeal, the Superior Court’s judgment
was affirmed.1
(3)
On July 22, 2003, Stewart filed a motion for reduction of sentence.
Stewart sought a sentence reduction on the basis that recently-enacted House
Bill 210 provided in part that the offense of Trafficking in Cocaine should be
subject to a two-year rather than a three-year minimum mandatory term of
imprisonment.   By order dated April 15, 2004, the Superior Court denied
2
Stewart’s request for a sentence reduction.  Relying on its January 13, 2004
decision in State v.  Ismaaeel, the Superior Court ruled that the ameliorative
See State v.  Ismaaeel, 820 A.2d 644 (Del.  Super.  2004) (concluding that H.B. 210
3
applied only to offenses committed after June 30, 2003, the effective date of the legislation).
Ismaaeel v.  State, 2004 WL 1587040 (Del.  Supr.).
4
3
sentencing provisions of House Bill 210 did not apply retroactively to Stewart’s
sentence.   This appeal followed. 
3
(4)
By Order dated July 9, 2004, this Court affirmed the Superior
Court’s judgment in State v. Ismaaeel and thus rejected the argument that
House Bill 210 could be applied retroactively.   Accordingly, we find no error
4
in the Superior Court’s denial of Stewart’s motion for reduction of sentence.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is
GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Myron T. Steele
Chief Justice