IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
MICHAEL JASINSKI, §
§
Defendant Below, § No. 353, 2018
Appellant, §
§ Court Below—Superior Court
v. § of the State of Delaware
§
STATE OF DELAWARE, § Cr. ID No. 0001010220 (N)
§
Plaintiff Below, §
Appellee. §
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
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).
2