Coverdale v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE DARRYL D. COVERDALE, Defendant BelowAppellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff BelowAppellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 179, 2000 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County Cr.A. No. VN95-03-2042-02 VN95-01-1018-01 Submitted: August 31, 2000 Decided: October 23, 2000 Before WALSH, HOLLAND and STEELE, Justices ORDER This 23rd day of October 2000, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal and the record below, it appears to the Court that: (1) The defendant-appellant, Darryl D. Coverdale, filed an appeal from an order of the Superior Court denying his motion for modification of sentence pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b). 1 We find no merit to the appeal. Accordingly, we AFFIRM. Coverdale also invokes 11 Del. C. § 4217 as the basis for his motion. That statute governs applications by the Department of Correction for modification of sentences, however, and does not apply to this case. 1 (2) In this appeal, Coverdale claims his sentence should be changed from Level V incarceration to Level IV work release because he was the victim of entrapment, 2 he did not commit a violent crime and his family is suffering hardship because of his prison sentence. (3) On January 23, 1998, Coverdale was convicted of probation violations in connection with prior drug and felony theft convictions. He was sentenced to a total of 2-½ years incarceration at Level V, to be suspended for 18 months at Level IV work release upon successful completion of the Key or New Hope Program, to be suspended after 7 months for 11 months at Level III. (4) Coverdale did not appeal from his convictions and sentences, but filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in this Court and a motion for postconviction relief in the Superior Court. This Court dismissed Coverdale s petition for a writ of mandamus3 and affirmed the Superior Court s denial of his motion for postconviction relief. 4 In July 1998, Coverdale also filed a motion for modification of sentence, which was 2 Coverdale withdraws this contention in his reply brief. In re Coverdale, Del. Supr., No. 125, 1998, Hartnett, J., 1998 WL 188568 (Apr. 7, 1998) (ORDER). 3 Coverdale v. State, Del. Supr., No. 188, 1998, Hartnett, J., 1998 WL 985330 (Nov. 12, 1998) (ORDER). 4 2 denied by the Superior Court. On January 26, 2000, Coverdale filed the instant motion for modification of sentence, which on April 3, 2000 the Superior Court denied as repetitive. (5) Coverdale s latest motion for modification of sentence was correctly denied by the Superior Court as repetitive. 5 In addition, the motion was untimely because it was filed more than 90 days following the imposition of sentence and a review of the record reveals no extraordinary circumstances that would justify consideration of the motion beyond the 90-day period. 6 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT: Randy J. Holland Justice 5 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b). 6 Id. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
