Resop v. State ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •          IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    RYAN M. RESOP,                         §
    §
    Defendant Below,                 §   No. 182, 2017
    Appellant,                       §
    §   Court Below—Superior Court
    v.                               §   of the State of Delaware
    §
    STATE OF DELAWARE,                     §   Cr. ID No. 0701010111 (N)
    Plaintiff Below,                 §
    Appellee.                        §
    Submitted: July 27, 2017
    Decided:   August 31, 2017
    Before VAUGHN, SEITZ, and TRAYNOR, Justices.
    ORDER
    This 31st day of August 2017, after careful consideration of the appellant’s
    opening brief, the State’s motion to affirm, and the record, we find it manifest that
    the judgment below should be affirmed on the basis of the Superior Court’s order,
    dated March 28, 2017, denying the appellant’s time-barred and repetitive motion for
    modification of sentence under Superior Court Rule 35(b).           The appellant’s
    unsupported argument that he should be credited with hypothetical good time he
    would have earned had he not been erroneously identified as a State witness did not
    constitute “extraordinary circumstances” under Rule 35(b).
    NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that motion to affirm is GRANTED
    and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
    BY THE COURT:
    /s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr.
    Justice
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 182, 2017

Judges: Seitz J.

Filed Date: 8/31/2017

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/1/2017