Pernot v. State

Summary

The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s denial of Charles Pernot’s motion challenging a violation-of-probation sentence and seeking a transcript at state expense. The Court held that the sentencing challenge was properly treated under Rule 35 rather than Rule 61, was untimely absent extraordinary circumstances, and that the transcript request lacked good cause.

Holdings

1. A motion challenging only the sentence imposed, rather than seeking to set aside the underlying judgment of conviction, must be brought under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35, not Rule 61. The Superior Court therefore did not err by treating Pernot's motion as one for sentence modification or reduction.
2. The Superior Court did not abuse its discretion by denying Pernot's motion for sentence modification or reduction. The motion was filed well beyond Rule 35's ninety-day deadline, and Pernot showed neither extraordinary circumstances justifying the delay nor support for his claim of preconceived judicial bias. The record also showed that the violation-of-probation sentence was consistent with the plea agreement and sentencing order.
3. The Superior Court did not err by denying Pernot's request for a transcript at state expense because he failed to show good cause or identify factual or legal grounds that could support postconviction relief or sentence modification.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Superior Court properly treated Pernot's motion for postconviction relief as a motion for sentence modification or reduction under Rule 35.
2. Whether the Superior Court abused its discretion by denying Pernot's untimely sentence-modification motion and his claim that the court acted with preconceived bias or breached the plea agreement.
3. Whether the Superior Court properly denied Pernot's request for a transcript of the violation-of-probation hearing at state expense.

Disposition

affirmed