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

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