King v. State (Delaware 2025)

Summary

The Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed the Superior Court's denial of Jeffrey King's second Rule 35(b) motion to modify his sentence. The Court held that the motion was barred as repetitive and that King failed to establish extraordinary circumstances excusing its untimeliness because his medical conditions had been considered during plea negotiations, sentencing, and his prior modification motion. The Court noted that King may still seek relief through a Department of Correction application for sentence modification based on good cause.

Holding

Repetitive sentence-modification motion. Rule 35(b) bars repetitive motions for sentence modification, and the rule contains no exception to that repetitive-motion bar. King's second motion was therefore impermissible.

Extraordinary circumstances excusing an untimely motion. The Superior Court did not abuse its discretion in finding that King's medical circumstances did not excuse his untimely motion because those circumstances had been considered during plea negotiations, before sentencing, at sentencing, and in his prior timely modification motion.