Resop v. State

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE RYAN M. RESOP, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. § § § § § § § § § § No. 182, 2017 Court Below—Superior Court of the State of Delaware Cr. ID No. 0701010111 (N) 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

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.