IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
JOSHUA C. CALLAHAN, §
§
Defendant Below, § No. 232, 2016
Appellant, §
§ Court Below—Superior Court
v. § of the State of Delaware
§
STATE OF DELAWARE, § Cr. ID No. 0911003857
Plaintiff Below, §
Appellee. §
Submitted: June 28, 2016
Decided: August 22, 2016
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND and SEITZ, Justices.
ORDER
This 22nd day of August 2016, 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, Joshua C. Callahan, filed this appeal from the Superior
Court‟s denial of his motion for reduction of sentence. The State of Delaware filed
a motion to affirm the judgment below on the ground that it was manifest on the
face of Callahan‟s opening brief that the appeal was without merit. We agree and
affirm.
(2) The record reflects that, on May 5, 2010, Callahan pled guilty to
Possession of Firearm During the Commission of a Felony, Robbery in the First
Degree, Conspiracy in the Second Degree, and two counts of Reckless
Endangering in the First Degree. Callahan was sentenced to thirty-six years of
Level V incarceration, suspended after eleven years and successful completion of
the Greentree Program for decreasing levels of supervision. Callahan did not
appeal the Superior Court‟s judgment.
(3) On March 28, 2016, Callahan filed his fifth motion for modification
or reduction of sentence. The Superior Court denied the motion, finding that the
sentence imposed was reasonable and appropriate and that there were no
extraordinary circumstances to support consideration of Callahan‟s untimely
motion. This appeal followed.
(4) This Court reviews the Superior Court‟s denial of a motion for
reduction of sentence for abuse of discretion.1 Under Superior Court Criminal
Rule 35(b), a motion for reduction of sentence that is not filed within ninety days
of sentencing, like Callahan‟s motion, will only be considered in extraordinary
circumstances or under 11 Del. C. § 4217, which permits sentence reduction if the
Department of Correction files an application for good cause shown 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
requests for sentence modification.
1
State v. Lewis, 797 A.2d 1198, 1202 (Del. 2002).
2
(5) In his opening brief, Callahan argues that the Superior Court should
have considered his exceptional rehabilitation efforts in prison as an extraordinary
circumstance that justified reduction of his sentence. “[P]articipation in
educational and rehabilitative programs, while commendable, does not, in and of
itself, constitute „extraordinary circumstances‟ for purposes of Rule 35(b).”2 In
addition, Callahan‟s motion for reduction of sentence was repetitive under Rule
35(b). The Superior Court did not err therefore in denying Callahan‟s motion for
reduction of sentence.
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/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.
Chief Justice
2
DeShields v. State, 2012 WL 1072298, at *1 (Del. Mar. 30, 2012) (citing Morgan v. State, 2009
WL 1279107, at *1 (Del. May 11, 2009)).
3