Opinion
No. 464, 1998.
January 20, 1999.
Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for Sussex County in Cr. A. No. 97-04-0712, Def. ID Nos. 9704013724.
AFFIRMED.
Unpublished Opinion is below.
PATRICIA MATTHEWS, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below Appellee. No. 464, 1998. In the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. Submitted: December 11, 1998. Decided: January 20, 1999.
Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for Sussex County in Cr. A. No. 97-04-0712, Def. ID Nos. 9704013724.
Before WALSH, HOLLAND, and HARTNETT, Justices.
ORDER
This 20th day of January 1999, it appears to the Court that:
(1) The defendant-appellant, Patricia Matthews ("Matthews"), has filed this appeal from a Superior Court decision denying her request for modification of sentence pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b) ("Rule 35(b)"). The appellee, the State of Delaware ("State"), has moved to affirm the judgment of the Superior Court on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Matthews' brief that the appeal is without merit. Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). It is clear that the appeal is without merit, and, therefore the motion to affirm must be granted.
(2) In June 1997, Matthews pleaded guilty to charges of second degree burglary, second degree forgery, and misdemeanor theft. At sentencing, Matthews was declared an habitual offender and was sentenced to two years at Level V imprisonment for the forgery conviction. 11 Del. C. § 4214. For the misdemeanor theft conviction, Matthews was sentenced to one year at Level V imprisonment, suspended for one year at Level II probation. For the second degree burglary conviction, Matthews was sentenced, pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 11(e)(1)(c), to eight years at Level V imprisonment, suspended after six years, for two years at Level III probation.
(3) In August 1997, Matthews, with the assistance of counsel, filed a motion for reduction of sentence. The motion was denied by the Superior Court. Matthews then began filing a series of pro se motions for reduction and/or modification of sentence, as well as numerous "letters," urging the Superior Court to reduce and/or to modify her sentence. The Superior Court denied Matthews' motions and attempted, without success, to discourage Matthews from writing letters to the court.
(4) On September 29, 1998, Matthews filed a letter requesting a modification of sentence. The request was denied by the Superior Court on October 6, 1998. This appeal followed.
(5) In support of her request for modification of sentence in the Superior Court, Matthews argued that she is rehabilitated and thus deserving of a modification of her sentence. On appeal, Matthews reiterates her claim that her rehabilitation justifies a modification of sentence. She also appears to claim that her guilty plea was involuntary because she did not understand the sentence that was imposed by the Superior Court.
(6) In her opening brief on appeal, Matthews claims that she did not understand the terms of the sentence that was imposed by the Superior Court. Matthews' claim was not presented in her September 29 letter request for reduction of sentence, the denial of which is on appeal. Supreme Court Rule 8 provides that only questions which have been fairly presented to the trial court may be presented for review on appeal, unless the interests of justice require otherwise. In the exercise of this Court's discretion, we decline to review this claim.
(7) A reviewing court will not interfere with a sentencing court's refusal to modify a sentence, unless it can be demonstrated that the sentence imposed was beyond the maximum authorized by law or was the result of an abuse of discretion by the sentencing judge. Mayes v. State, Del. Supr., 604 A.2d 839, 842 (1992). In this case, the Superior Court imposed a sentence that was well within the statutory limits. See 11 Del. C. § 4214 (providing for sentencing as habitual offender); see 11 Del. C. § 4205 (providing sentences for felonies); see 11 Del. C. § 4206 (providing sentences for misdemeanors). Matthews has provided no evidence that her sentence was the result of an abuse of discretion by the sentencing judge. Accordingly, it appears that the Superior Court properly denied Matthews' request for modification.
(8) Moreover, pursuant to Rule 35(b), a motion for modification of sentence that is filed more than 90 days after the imposition of sentence will not be considered by the Superior Court absent extraordinary circumstances or an application pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 4217. The record reflects that Matthews has not met the requirement to either exception to the time limitation set forth in Rule 35(b).
(9) It is manifest on the face of Matthews' opening brief that her appeal is without merit. The issues presented are clearly controlled by settled Delaware law and, to the extent that judicial discretion is implicated, clearly there was no abuse of discretion.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 25(a), the State's motion to affirm is GRANTED. The judgment of the Superior Court is hereby AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Randy J. Holland, Justice
MATTER OF MCBRIDE