State v. Walker ( 2016 )

SUPERIOR COURT
OF THE
STATE OF DELAWARE
JOHN A. PARKINS, JR. NEW CASTLE COUNTY COURTHOUSE
JUDGE 500 NORTH KING STREET, SUITE 10400
WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801-3733
TELEPHONE: (302) 255-2584
June 22, 2016
Dwayne A. Walker
SBI 354596
James T. Vaughn Correctional Center
1181 Paddock Road
Smyrna, Delaware 19977
Re: State of Delaware v. Dwayne A. Walker
I.D. No. 0509010302A
Dear Mr. Walker:
This letter refers to your latest motion for reduction of
sentence and your June 2, 2016 motion for transcripts of your
sentencing.
In 2005 you were indicted for murder in the first degree, one
count of possession of a deadly weapon during the commission of
a felony and one count of possession of a deadly weapon by a
person prohibited. You pleaded guilty to murder in the second
degree and were sentenced to 30 years at Level 5 suspended after
20 years for decreasing levels of probation.1 You previously filed
motions for reduction of sentence which were denied on
December 29, 2006; January 24, 2014 and October 22, 2014.
Criminal Rule 35(b) of this court provides in pertinent part
that “[t]he court will consider an application made more than 90
days after the imposition of sentence only in extraordinary
circumstances . . . . The court will not consider repetitive
requests for reduction of sentence.” Your motion is barred for
both of these reasons. First, you have not shown extraordinary
circumstances. You efforts at rehabilitation are commendable,
but rehabilitation does not constitute an extraordinary
circumstance. The Delaware Supreme Court “has held that
participation in educational and rehabilitative programs, while
commendable, is not in and of itself sufficient to establish
extraordinary circumstances warranting review of an untimely
motion for sentence modification.”2 In your most recent motion
you wrote “with all due respect to my victim and loved ones, there
1
At the time of your crime you were on probation for three 2001 offenses, and your commission of the murder
constituted a violation of those probations. The Judge who sentenced you for your murder-two conviction
discharged you from the 2001 probations you were then serving.
2
Morgan v. State, 2009 WL 1279107 (Del.).
2
is nothing that I can do and no amount of level 5 time that I serve
can change that fact.” The judge who sentenced you was, of
course aware that no amount of time spent at Level 5 would bring
your victim back. Therefore this can hardly constitute an
“extraordinary circumstance.” Finally it is good that you are
remorseful for your crime, but remorse does not itself constitute
an extraordinary circumstance. Therefore your Rule 35 motion
for reduction or modification of your sentence is DENIED.
In a separate motion you request a copy of the transcript of
your sentencing. You state that you want the transcript for your
“personal files” and that you plan to use it in the future in a post-
conviction motion. You write:
He is now seeking appeals to reconsider certain
issues relevant to his conviction and sentence. He
believes there may have been errors that affect the
outcome of the case. The sentencing transcripts are
material, and hold information for reviewal.
Such a generalized explanation why you need the transcript does
not persuade the court one should be prepared for you. This
court has previously written:
An application for the production of transcripts is
addressed to the sound discretion of this Court. The
Constitution does not “require that an indigent be
furnished every possible legal tool, no matter how
speculative its value, and no matter how devoid of
3
assistance it may be.” Thus it is not an abuse of
discretion to deny a request for transcripts where
the transcripts are sought for the preparation of a
Rule 61 motion for post conviction relief and it
appears that the Rule 61 motion would be
procedurally barred. Given the complete absence of
any showing that Defendant has a colorable claim
for post conviction relief that is not procedurally
barred, his motion for probation of transcripts and
other documents is DENIED.3
The same reasoning holds true in your case, and your request for
transcripts is DENIED.
Very truly yours,
John A. Parkins, Jr.
oc: Prothonotary
cc: Ipek K. Medford, DAG, Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware
3
State v. Bailey, 2009 WL 5192051 (Del. Super.)(footnotes omitted).
4