Taylor v. State

• Court: Supreme Court of Delaware
• Decided: October 1, 2025
• Docket: 220, 2025
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

DIMITRI L. TAYLOR, § § No. 220, 2025 Defendant Below, § Appellant, § Court Below—Superior Court § of the State of Delaware v. § § Cr. ID Nos. 2310004622 STATE OF DELAWARE, § 2304009124 (N) § Appellee. §

Submitted: September 2, 2025 Decided: October 1, 2025

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; LEGROW and GRIFFITHS, Justices.

ORDER

After careful consideration of the opening brief, the motion to affirm, and the

record on appeal, the Court concludes that the judgment of the Superior Court should

be affirmed on the basis of the Superior Court’s April 23, 2025 order denying the

appellant’s motion for modification of sentence. The Superior Court did not err in

concluding that the appellant did not establish extraordinary circumstances

warranting modification more than ninety days after the sentence was imposed.1 Nor

does the court’s observation that the motion for modification did not mention the

1 See DEL. SUPER. CT. R. CRIM. PROC. 35(b) (“The court will consider an application made more than 90 days after the imposition of sentence only in extraordinary circumstances . . . .”). victim demonstrate an abuse of discretion, as the court stated sufficient other reasons

for denying the motion, including but not limited to the time-bar.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Affirm is

GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT: /s/ N. Christopher Griffiths Justice