Tatem v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE WILLIAM TATEM, JR., Defendant BelowAppellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff BelowAppellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 278, 2006 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County Cr. ID 84006375DI Submitted: October 13, 2006 Decided: December 11, 2006 Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and JACOBS, Justices. ORDER This 11th day of December 2006, upon consideration of the parties briefs and the record on appeal, it appears to the Court that: (1) The defendant-appellant, William Tatem, filed this appeal from the Superior Court s denial of his motion for modification of sentence. The record reflects that Tatem was convicted in 1984 of rape, kidnapping, and two weapon offenses and was sentenced to two life terms plus six years imprisonment. In 2006, Tatem filed a motion requesting a reduction of his sentence based on his efforts at rehabilitation and also based on the General Assembly s revision of the sexual offenses statutes in 1986 and its subsequent adoption of the Truth in Sentencing Act. The Superior Court denied Tatem s motion. We find no error; thus we affirm the Superior Court s judgment on appeal. (2) Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b) provides that the Superior Court will consider a motion for reduction of sentence that is filed more than 90 days after sentencing only in extraordinary circumstances or pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 4217. 1 Neither Tatem s rehabilitative efforts nor the General Assembly s revision of the rape statutes and subsequent adoption of the Truth in Sentencing Act constitute extraordinary circumstances to warrant a modification of Tatem s sentence.2 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Carolyn Berger Justice 1 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b). Section 4217 of Title 11 of the Delaware Code, which permits the Department of Correction to request a modification of sentence on a defendant s behalf, is inapplicable in Tatem s case. 2 See Allen v. State, 2002 WL 31796351 (Del. Dec. 11, 2002) (holding that a commendable prison record does not constitute extraordinary circumstances); Robinson v. State, 584 A.2d 1203, 1205 (Del. 1990) (holding that the Truth in Sentencing Act does not apply retroactively). 2
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.
