Rollins v. State

Summary

The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s denial of Duane L. Rollins’s motion for correction or modification of sentence. The Court held that Rollins was eligible for habitual-offender sentencing and that his sentence-modification request was untimely under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b); it also held that relief under 11 Del. C. § 4217 requires an application by the Department of Correction, which was not required to apply.

Holdings

1. The Superior Court did not abuse its discretion by treating Rollins's letter as a motion for modification or reduction of sentence under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b) and denying it as untimely.
2. Rollins was eligible for habitual-offender sentencing despite strangulation not being listed as a violent felony under § 4201(c). The omission meant only that the Superior Court was not required to impose a five-year minimum mandatory Level V sentence for the second strangulation count; it did not make Rollins ineligible for habitual-offender status.
3. Rollins was not entitled to relief under § 4217 because sentence modification under that provision may be sought solely on the basis of an application filed by the Department of Correction, and the Department was not required to file such an application.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Superior Court abused its discretion by treating Rollins's filing as a motion under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b) and denying it as untimely.
2. Whether Rollins was ineligible for habitual-offender sentencing because strangulation was not listed as a violent felony under 11 Del. C. § 4201(c) at the time of his conviction.
3. Whether Rollins was entitled to sentence modification under 11 Del. C. § 4217 absent an application from the Department of Correction.

Disposition

affirmed