State v. Barnett ( 2024 )

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
STATE OF DELAWARE, )
)
v. ) ID No. 2306008339
)
RICHARD BARNETT, )
)
Defendant. )
ORDER
1. On this 3rd day of January, 2024, upon consideration of Defendant Richard
Barnett’s (“Defendant”) pro se Motion for Sentence Reduction (the “Motion”) made
pursuant to Superior Court Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b),1 the sentence imposed
upon Defendant, and the record in this case, it appears to the Court that:
2. On July 28, 2023, Defendant pled guilty to two counts of Burglary in the
Third Degree (Class F Non-Violent Felony).2
3. On August 8, 2023, this Court sentenced him to three years of Level V
supervision, suspended after successful completion of Level V supervision at the
discretion of the Delaware Department of Correction (“DOC”), followed by one year
of Level III supervision. This sentence includes a condition that requires Defendant
1
D.I. 5. Defendant does not specifically cite to Rule 35(b) in the Motion, but he asks this Court
to reduce the levels of confinement of his sentence.
2
D.I. 3.
to be assessed by the DOC and to successfully complete any treatment or
programming that the DOC recommends.3
4. On October 4, 2023, Defendant filed the instant Motion, in which he asks
this Court to modify his sentence to six months of Level V supervision, followed by
three months of Level IV supervision at a residential inpatient treatment facility,
followed by one year of Level III supervision.4
5. Defendant states that the DOC recommended that he complete the Road to
Recovery treatment program but that he has had no opportunity to begin the program
due to the waiting list of participants. Accordingly, he requests to spend three
months of his Level V sentence in Level IV inpatient care instead, for more
individualized attention.5
6. Rule 35(b) provides that the Court can “reduce a sentence of imprisonment
on a motion made within 90 days after the sentence is imposed.” A timely, non-
repetitive Rule 35(b) motion is “essentially a ‘plea for leniency.’”6 Defendant’s
Motion was made less than ninety days after Defendant was sentenced on August 8,
3
D.I. 4. Defendant states that the Court sentenced him to “3 years of Level 5, suspended after
successful completion of Level 5 Road to Recovery program at D.O.C. discretion followed by 12
months Level 3 probation with GPS.” D.I. 5. While this description resembles the sentence
request of the State and Defendant in the plea agreement, it does not match the Court’s August 8,
2023 sentence order. D.I.s 3, 4.
4
D.I. 5.
5
Id.
6
State v. Panaro, 2022 WL 4362929, at *1 (Del. Super. Sept. 20, 2022) (quoting State v. Lewis,
797 A.2d 1198, 1201 (Del. 2002)).
2
2023, and is his first motion to reduce that sentence, so it is timely and non-repetitive.
With the procedural requirements satisfied, Defendant bears the burden to establish
just cause for sentence reduction.7 The Court has “broad discretion to decide if it
should alter its judgment.”8
7. When the Court imposed Defendant’s sentence, it gave the DOC discretion
over the successful completion of the Level V supervision portion of Defendant’s
sentence. The Court sees no need to question that grant of discretion in this case.
8. After reviewing the Motion, sentence, and record in this case, the Court
finds no just cause for sentence reduction. Defendant’s sentence is appropriate for
all the reasons stated at the time of sentencing. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________ ______________
Sheldon K. Rennie, Judge
Original to Prothonotary
cc: Richard Barnett (SBI #00361805)
7
State v. Smith, 2021 WL 416394, at *3 (Del. Super. Feb. 8, 2021).
8
State v. Cruz, 2015 WL 3429939, at *2 (Del. Super. May 26, 2015).
3