Ferguson v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE JAMAL FERGUSON, Defendant BelowAppellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff BelowAppellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 582, 2002 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for Kent County Cr.A. Nos. IK01-01-0560 IK01-11-0052 Submitted: January 10, 2003 Decided: February 27, 2003 Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and HOLLAND, Justices ORDER This 27th day of February 2003, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal and the record below, it appears to the Court that: (1) The defendant-appellant, Jamal Ferguson, filed an appeal from the Superior Court s September 11, 2002 order denying his motion for sentence modification pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b). We find no merit to the appeal. Accordingly, we AFFIRM. (2) On March 5, 2001, Ferguson was indicted on 3 drug charges and, on December 3, 2001, was indicted on 4 additional drug charges. On May 30, 2002, Ferguson pleaded guilty to one count of Attempted Possession with Intent to Deliver Marijuana and one count of Maintaining a Dwelling for Keeping Controlled Substances. The remaining charges were dismissed. Ferguson was sentenced to a total of 7 years incarceration at Level V, to be suspended after 2 years for 2 years Level III probation, to be followed by an additional 2 years of Level II probation. While at Level V, Ferguson was to complete the Greentree drug program. Approximately 2 ½ months after his pleas were entered, Ferguson filed a motion for sentence modification in the Superior Court requesting that he be assigned to Level IV work release or home confinement following his completion of the Level V Greentree drug program. (3) In this appeal, Ferguson claims that the Superior Court: a) abused its discretion by denying his motion for sentence modification; and b) prejudiced his ability to present his claim on appeal by rendering its decision on a pre-printed form. (4) Ferguson s claim that the Superior Court abused its discretion by denying his motion is without merit. Ferguson received a substantial benefit from his May 30, 2002 plea agreement.1 There is no evidence that his plea, entered only 2 ½ months before his motion was filed, was not entered 1 Downer v. State, 543 A.2d 309, 312-13 (Del. 1988). -2- knowingly and voluntarily. Moreover, there is no evidence that the Superior Court s use of a pre-printed form to render its decision in any way prevented Ferguson from fully presenting his claims on appeal. Any alleged error on the part of the Superior Court was, thus, harmless. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT: s/Joseph T. Walsh Justice -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.
