IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
COURTNEY JONES, §
§
Defendant Below, § No. 19, 2021
Appellant, §
§ Court Below—Superior Court
v. § of the State of Delaware
§
STATE OF DELAWARE, § Cr. ID Nos. 1705021755,
§ 1707115524, 1707018746 (N)
Plaintiff Below, §
Appellee. §
Submitted: March 15, 2021
Decided: April 22, 2021
Before VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and TRAYNOR, Justices.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the appellee’s motion to
affirm, and the record below, it appears to the Court that:
(1) The appellant, Courtney Jones, filed this appeal from a Superior Court
order denying his motions for modification of sentence. The State of Delaware has
filed a motion to affirm the judgment below on the ground that it is manifest on the
face of Jones’s opening brief that his appeal is without merit. We agree and affirm.
(2) On February 5, 2018, Jones resolved three criminal cases (Criminal ID
Nos. 1705021755, 1707015524, and 1707018746) by pleading guilty to possession
of a firearm by a person prohibited (“PFBPP”), three counts of second-degree
robbery, and second-degree conspiracy. On December 14, 2018, the Superior Court
sentenced Johnson to a total of thirteen years Level V incarceration, suspended after
eight years for decreasing levels of supervision. Jones did not appeal.
(3) On January 28, 2019, Jones filed a motion for sentence reduction in Cr.
ID Nos. 1705021755 and 1707015524. In the motion, Jones stated that he was not
requesting a ruling, but filing the motion within the 90-day time period under
Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b) so that he could file an additional motion at a
later point in time. According to the docket, the Superior Court denied the motion
as moot.
(4) On March 7, 2019, Jones filed a motion for sentence modification in
Cr. ID No. 1705021755. In the motion, Jones stated that he was not presently
seeking a ruling on the motion and wished the Superior Court to acknowledge that
he had filed a timely motion for sentence modification. The Superior Court ruled
that no action would be taken on the motion.
(5) In December 2019 and January 2020, Jones filed requests in Cr. ID Nos.
1705021755 and 1707015524 for sentence reduction. On March 17, 2020, the
Superior Court denied the requests, finding they were untimely and that Jones had
failed to establish extraordinary circumstances. On April 24, 2020, Jones filed a
motion for reconsideration/sentence modification in Cr. ID Nos. 1705021755,
1707015524, and 1707018746. He filed additional requests for reduction of his
sentence in May 2020 and July 2020.
2
(6) On December 21, 2020, the Superior Court denied Jones’s motions.
The Superior Court held that the motions were untimely, failed to establish
extraordinary circumstances, and were repetitive. This appeal followed.
(7) We review the Superior Court’s denial of a motion for sentence
reduction for abuse of discretion.1 To the extent the claim involves a question of
law, we review the claim de novo.2 Rule 35(b) provides that a motion for sentence
reduction that is not filed within ninety days of sentencing will only be considered
in extraordinary circumstances or pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 4217. Section 4217
permits sentence modification if the Department of Correction (“DOC”) files an
application for good cause shown (such as serious medical illness) and certifies that
the offender does not constitute a substantial risk to the community or himself. Rule
35(b) also provides that the Superior Court will not consider repetitive motions for
sentence reduction.
(8) In his opening brief, Jones argues that his motions are not time-barred
because he filed placeholder motions for sentence reduction within ninety days of
sentencing. He also argues that his sentence should be reduced based on his remorse,
lack of habitual offender status, and the COVID-19 pandemic. These arguments are
1
State v. Culp, 152 A.3d 141, 144 (Del. 2016).
2
Id.
3
without merit.
(9) As the Superior Court recognized, Jones could not avoid the ninety-day
time period in Rule 35(b) by filing a placeholder motion within the ninety-day period
and then filing a motion with the substantive grounds for relief after the ninety-day
period had expired. Jones cites no authority in support of his position, which is
contrary to the plain language of Rule 35(b).3 Thus, the Superior Court did not err
in concluding that Jones’s motions for sentence reduction filed more than ninety
days after the imposition of his sentence were untimely and repetitive.
(10) Nor did the Superior Court err in finding that Jones failed to show
extraordinary circumstances warranting reduction of his sentence. Jones’s remorse
and lack of habitual offender status do not constitute extraordinary circumstances
under Rule 35(b). As to COVID-19, an application by DOC under § 4217 is the
proper vehicle for relief should Jones’s personal health warrant sentence
3
Rule 35(b) provides in relevant part that:
The court may reduce a sentence of imprisonment on a motion made within 90 days after
the sentence is imposed. This period shall not be interrupted or extended by an appeal,
except that a motion may be made within 90 days of the imposition of sentence after
remand for a new trial or for resentencing. The court may decide the motion or defer
decision while an appeal is pending. The court will consider an application made more
than 90 days after the imposition of sentence only in extraordinary circumstances or
pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 4217. The court will not consider repetitive requests for reduction
of sentence.
4
modification.4
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/ James T. Vaughn, Jr.
Justice
4
See, e.g., Johnson v. State, 2020 WL 5626231, at *2 (Del. Sept. 18, 2020) (affirming the Superior
Court’s denial of a motion for sentence modification in which the defendant argued that his
medical conditions and potential exposure to COVID-19 constituted extraordinary circumstances
under Rule 35(b) because § 4217 was the statutory vehicle for medical modification of a sentence).
5