State v. Adams ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •           IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    STATE OF DELAWARE,                           )
    )
    v.                                  ) I.D. No. 1608020446
    )
    LOREN L. ADAMS,                              )
    )
    Defendant.                          )
    Date Submitted:     May 1, 2020
    Date Decided:       May 29, 2020
    ORDER
    Upon consideration of Defendant’s Motion for Sentence Modification
    (“Motion”), Superior Court Criminal Rule 35, statutory and decisional law, and the
    record in this case, IT APPEARS THAT:
    1.    On February 6, 2017, Defendant Loren Adams pled guilty to Possession
    of a Firearm by a Person Prohibited (“PFBPP”) and Carrying a Concealed Deadly
    Weapon (“CCDW”). 1         Defendant was immediately sentenced as follows: for
    PFBPP, IN16-09-0105, 15 years at Level V, suspended after the 5-year minimum
    mandatory term, for 2 years at Level IV (DOC Discretion), suspended after 6 months
    for 18 months at supervision Level III; and for CCDW, IN16-09-0106, 8 years at
    Level V, suspended for 1 year at Level III.2
    1
    D.I. 8.
    2
    D.I. 10.
    2.      On May 1, 2020, Defendant filed the instant Motion, asking the Court
    to run the last 180 days of his Level V sentence concurrent with his Level IV
    sentence.3 In support of this request, Defendant cites: (1) his completion of the
    Key North Correctional Recovery Program; (2) his General Educational
    Development (GED) certificate; (3) his need to support his family upon release; and
    (4) his potential exposure to COVID-19.4
    3.      Superior Court Criminal Rule 35 governs motions for modification of
    sentence. “Under Rule 35(b), a motion for sentence modification must be filed
    within ninety days of sentencing, absent a showing of ‘extraordinary
    circumstances.’”5 The Court will not consider repetitive requests for reduction or
    modification of sentence.6
    4.      This is Defendant’s second request to modify his sentence under Rule
    35(b), and therefore, this Motion is barred as repetitive. 7
    5.      In addition, this Motion was filed well beyond 90 days from the
    imposition of Defendant’s sentences, and it is therefore time-barred under Rule
    3
    D.I. 16.
    4
    Id.
    5
    Croll v. State, 
    2020 WL 1909193
    , at *1 (Del. Apr. 17, 2020) (TABLE) (affirming the Superior
    Court’s denial of a motion for modification of sentence where the motion was repetitive and filed
    beyond the 90-day limit); see Hewett v. State, 
    2014 WL 5020251
    , at *1 (Del. Oct. 7, 2014) (“When
    a motion for reduction of sentence is filed within ninety days of sentencing, the Superior Court has
    broad discretion to decide whether to alter its judgment.”).
    6
    Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b).
    7
    See D.I. 14, 16.
    2
    35(b).
    6.    The Court will consider an application made more than 90 days after
    the imposition of sentence only in “extraordinary circumstances,” or pursuant to 11
    Del. C. § 4217. Delaware law places a heavy burden on the moving party to
    establish extraordinary circumstances in order to “uphold the finality of sentences.”8
    “Extraordinary circumstances” excusing an untimely Rule 35(b) motion are
    circumstances that “specifically justify the delay, are entirely beyond a petitioner’s
    control, and have prevented the applicant from seeking the remedy on a timely
    basis.”9 Mitigating factors that could have been presented at sentence, exemplary
    conduct, or successful rehabilitation while incarcerated does not constitute
    “extraordinary circumstances.”10
    7.    Although Defendant’s rehabilitation efforts are commendable, the
    Court does not find that Defendant has set forth facts establishing “extraordinary
    circumstances.”
    8. The sentences are appropriate for all the reasons stated at the time of
    sentencing. No additional information has been provided to the Court that would
    warrant a reduction or modification of Defendant’s sentences.
    8
    State v. Diaz, 
    2015 WL 1741768
    , at *2 (Del. Apr. 15, 2015).
    9
    State v. Culp, 
    152 A.3d 141
    , 145 (Del. 2016) (internal quotations omitted) (quoting Diaz, 
    2015 WL 1741768
    , at *2).
    10
    See 
    id.
     at 145–46 (recognizing that participation in educational and rehabilitative prison
    programs is commendable, but does not by itself constitute “extraordinary circumstances” for
    purposes of Rule 35(b)).
    3
    NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s
    Motion for Sentence Modification of Sentence is DENIED.
    Jan R. Jurden
    Jan R. Jurden, President Judge
    Original to Prothonotary:
    cc: Loren L. Adams (SBI# 00516517)
    Cynthia Hurlock, DAG
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 1608020446

Judges: Jurden P.J.

Filed Date: 5/29/2020

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 5/29/2020