Simpkins v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE TIMOTHY W. SIMPKINS, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 53, 2006 Court Below--Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and Kent County in Cr. ID No. 0410008967. Submitted: May 24, 2006 Decided: July 14, 2006 Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices. ORDER This 14th day of July 2006, upon consideration of the appellant s opening brief and the appellee s motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 25(a), it appears to the Court that: (1) On September 14, 2005, Simpkins pleaded nolo contendere to Rape in the Fourth Degree and Noncompliance with Conditions of Bond. The Superior Court sentenced Simpkins to a total of twelve years at Level V imprisonment, suspended after eighteen months for probation. (2) On October 24, 2005, Simpkins filed a motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b). Simpkins alleged involuntary guilty plea, recantation of victim, ineffective assistance of counsel and financial hardship. (3) By order dated January 4, 2006, the Superior Court denied Simpkins Rule 35(b) motion on the basis that the sentence was imposed pursuant to a Plea Agreement between the State and the defendant and signed by the defendant. This appeal followed. In his opening brief on appeal, Simpkins argues ineffective assistance of counsel. (4) Delaware law is well established that appellate review of sentences is extremely limited. 1 This Court will not interfere with the Superior Court s denial of a motion for reduction of sentence unless it is demonstrated that the sentence exceeded the maximum authorized by statute or was an abuse of the court s discretion.2 (5) In Simpkins case, the record does not reflect that the Superior Court imposed a sentence that was beyond the maximum allowed by law or 1 Mayes v. State, 604 A.2d 839, 842 (Del. 1992). 2 Melody v. State, 2003 WL 1747237 (Del. Supr.) (citing Mayes v. State, 604 A.2d 839, 842-43 (Del. 1992)). 2 otherwise abused its discretion when imposing the sentence.3 To the extent Simpkins argues otherwise on appeal, his appeal is without merit. (6) The Court declines to consider the balance of Simpkins arguments on appeal, e.g., involuntary guilty plea and ineffective assistance of counsel, which are in the nature of postconviction relief.4 Those arguments either were raised for the first time on appeal or were not explicitly ruled upon by the Superior Court in the first instance.5 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State s motion to affirm is GRANTED. The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Carolyn Berger Justice 3 See Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, §§ 770, 4205(b)(3) (2001 & Supp. 2004) (providing that Rape in the Fourth Degree is punishable up to fifteen years at Level V incarceration); Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 2113(c)(1) (2001) (providing that Noncompliance with Conditions of Bond in connection with a felony is punishable up to five years imprisonment). 4 See Del. Super. Crim R. 61(governing postconviction remedy) (2006). 5 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 8. 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.
