State v. Ammermon, 2101008779 & 2105012455

Defendant Bryan P. Ammermon pleaded guilty on September 28, 2021 to two counts of felony DUI (fourth offense).
Court sentenced him to two consecutive terms: each two years at Level V, suspended after six months for one year of Level III TASC probation; sentences effective May 24, 2021.
Ammermon filed a Rule 35(b) motion asking the Court to reduce his Level V term by granting additional good-time credit (10 days per month) for voluntary participation in a pretrial "6 for 1" program.
The Court first identified the proper procedural vehicle for sentence modification requests under Rule 35(b).
The Court held that awarding or calculating good-time credit is an administrative function of the Department of Correction (DOC), not a judicial function under Rule 35(b).
The Court denied the Rule 35(b) motion and noted that a writ of mandamus is the proper remedy to challenge DOC’s calculation or application of good-time credit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 35(b) can be used to obtain additional good-time credit to reduce a Level V term	Ammermon: Court should apply extra good-time credit (10 days/month) for participation in the 6-for-1 pretrial program to reduce Level V time	State/DOC: Good-time credit is administered by DOC; Rule 35(b) is for judicial reconsideration, not to alter DOC’s administrative good-time calculations	Denied: Rule 35(b) is not the proper vehicle; good-time is an administrative device administered by DOC; mandamus is the proper challenge if DOC misapplies credits

Johnson v. State, 234 A.2d 447 (Del. 1967) (describing Rule 35’s purpose as permitting judicial reconsideration of a sentence)
Snyder v. Andrews, 708 A.2d 237 (Del. 1998) (describing Delaware’s good-time system and procedures)
State v. Tollis, 126 A.3d 1117 (Del. Super. Ct. 2016) (framework for identifying available procedural mechanisms for sentence modification)
State v. Remedio, 108 A.3d 326 (Del. Super. Ct. 2014) (discussing Rule 35 and the court’s consideration of procedural bars)
State v. Culp, 152 A.3d 141 (Del. 2016) (Supreme Court review of trial court sentence reductions and applicable authorities)