Dale v. State

• Court: Supreme Court of Delaware
• Decided: April 6, 2026
• Docket: 399, 2025
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

ANTHONY L. DALE, § § No. 399, 2025 Defendant Below, § Appellant, § Court Below–Superior Court § of the State of Delaware v. § § Cr. ID No. 1306017883 (N) STATE OF DELAWARE, § § Appellee. §

Submitted: January 23, 2026 Decided: April 6, 2026

Before TRAYNOR, LEGROW, and GRIFFITHS, Justices.

ORDER

After consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal, it appears

to the Court that:

(1) Anthony Dale appeals the Superior Court’s denial of his motion for

sentence modification. Having carefully reviewed the parties’ arguments, we affirm

the Superior Court’s judgment.

(2) In February 2014, a Superior Court jury convicted Dale of possession

of a firearm by a person prohibited (“PFBPP”), carrying a concealed deadly weapon

(“CCDW”), and possession of ammunition by a person prohibited (“PABPP”). The

Superior Court sentenced Dale as follows: for PFBPP, eight years of incarceration,

suspended after three years for five years of Level IV supervision, suspended after six months for two years of Level III probation with GPS monitoring; for CCDW,

eight years of incarceration, suspended after one year for two years of Level III

probation; and for PABPP, eight years of incarceration, suspended for one year of

Level III probation. Dale appealed but later voluntarily dismissed his appeal.

(3) In September 2017, Dale moved for the reduction of his sentence under

Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b). The Superior Court denied the motion, finding

that the motion was time-barred, Dale’s sentence remained appropriate for the

reasons stated at sentencing, and no extraordinary circumstances justified a sentence

reduction. Dale did not appeal.

(4) In 2021, in an unrelated case, a Superior Court jury found Dale guilty

of two counts of first-degree murder and one count of attempted first-degree murder

(the “2021 Murder Convictions”). On April 11, 2022, the Superior Court sentenced

Dale to three life sentences for the 2021 Murder Convictions. This Court affirmed

the 2021 Murder Convictions on direct appeal.1

(5) In May 2025, Dale filed another Rule 35(b) motion in this case, seeking

the modification or reduction of the partial confinement portion of his sentence. In

support of his motion, Dale argued that the partial confinement portion of his

sentence is superfluous in light of the 2021 Murder Convictions and cited statutory

amendments capping the probationary period for a violent crime at two years. The

1 Dale v. State, 2023 WL 4628801 (Del. July 19, 2023). 2 Superior Court denied Dale’s motion, finding that it was time-barred and otherwise

without merit. This appeal followed.

(6) We review a Superior Court’s denial of a motion for sentence

modification for an abuse of discretion.2 Generally, the Superior Court may consider

a motion for modification filed more than ninety days after the defendant’s

sentencing only in extraordinary circumstances or under 11 Del. C. § 4217.3 But

the court may reduce the term or conditions of partial confinement or probation at

any time.4 The Superior Court cannot, however, consider repetitive requests for

modification.5 A motion is “repetitive” if it is preceded by an earlier Rule 35(b)

motion, even if the subsequent motion raises new arguments.6

(7) On appeal, Dale argues that the Superior Court improperly concluded

that his motion was untimely and that extraordinary circumstances justify the

modification of his sentence. We agree with Dale that the Superior Court

erroneously denied his motion as time-barred. As noted above, the Superior Court

may reduce the term or conditions of partial confinement at any time. We

nevertheless affirm the Superior Court’s denial of Dale’s motion for sentence

modification on the independent and alternative basis that it was an impermissible

2 State v. Culp, 152 A.3d 141, 144 (Del. 2016). 3 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b). 4 Id. 5 Id.; Culp, 152 A.3d at 144. 6 Culp, 152 A.3d at 144. 3 repetitive Rule 35(b) motion.7 Dale’s 2025 Rule 35(b) motion was his second.

“Rule 35(b) does not set forth any exception to the repetitive motion bar…. [and

i]gnoring Rule 35(b)’s command that the court ‘not consider repetitive requests for

reduction of sentence’ [is] an abuse of discretion.”8

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior

Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Abigail M. LeGrow Justice

7 See Unitrin, Inc. v. American Gen. Corp., 651 A.2d 1361, 1390 (Del. 1995) (recognizing that this Court may affirm a lower court's judgment on the basis of a different rationale than that which was articulated by the trial court). 8 Culp, 152 A.3d at 144-45. 4