State v. Guzman ( 2023 )

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
STATE OF DELAWARE, )
)
v. ) ID No. 2112009362
)
ANTHONY GUZMAN, )
)
Defendant. )
ORDER
On this 10th day of October, 2023, upon consideration of Defendant Anthony
Guzman’s (“Defendant”) pro se Motion for Sentence Reduction (the “Motion”)
made pursuant to Superior Court Rule of Civil Procedure 35(b),1 the sentence
imposed upon Defendant, and the record in this case, it appears to the Court that:
1. On April 3, 2023, Defendant pled guilty to one count of Drug Dealing
(Class C Felony).2 On June 23, 2023, he was sentenced to fifteen years of Level V
supervision, suspended after eighteen months for twelve months of Level III
supervision.3
2. On July 25, 2023, Defendant filed the instant Motion, in which he asks this
Court to reduce his sentence to fifteen years of Level V supervision, suspended after
successful completion of a Level V treatment program, followed by twelve months
1
D.I. 16. Defendant does not specifically cite to Rule 35(b) in the Motion, but he asks this Court
to reduce his sentence.
2
Defendant did not date his signature to the plea agreement.
3
D.I. 15. Defendant also pled guilty to four counts of Operating a Vehicle with Improper Window
Tinting and was fined $100.00 plus surcharges and fees. Id.
of Level III supervision. In support, Defendant argues that evaluation and treatment
of his mental health are more likely to reduce his likelihood of recidivism than
incarceration. He believes that visiting with his family, friends, and life coaches
would have a therapeutic effect on him.4
4. 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.’”5 The Motion was
made less than ninety days after Defendant was sentenced and is his first motion for
sentence reduction, so it is timely and non-repetitive.
5. With the procedural requirements satisfied, Defendant bears the burden to
establish just cause for sentence reduction.6 The Court has “broad discretion to
decide if it should alter its judgment.”7 Defendant expressly agreed to the sentence
that this Court imposed by signing the plea agreement, which provided that the State
of Delaware would not request more than two years of unsuspended Level V
supervision. Defendant gained the benefit of that agreement, but he now seeks to
undercut it.8 After reviewing the Motion, sentence, and record in this case, the Court
4
D.I. 16.
5
State v. Panaro, 2022 WL 4362929, at *1 (Del. Super. Sept. 20, 2022) (quoting State v. Lewis,
797 A.2d 1198, 1201 (Del. 2002)).
6
State v. Smith, 2021 WL 416394, at *3 (Del. Super. Feb. 8, 2021).
7
State v. Cruz, 2015 WL 3429939, at *2 (Del. Super. May 26, 2015).
8
Cf. id. at *3. Further, the essence of Defendant’s argument in favor of sentence reduction is that
he has been rehabilitated. However, “Rule 35(b) is not the proper vehicle for seeking modification
based on rehabilitation.” State v. Culp, 152 A.3d 141, 146 (Del. 2016). Instead, on a defendant’s
2
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: Anthony Guzman (SBI #00969345)
behalf, the DOC may file an application for sentence reduction with the Board of Parole pursuant
to 11 Del. C. § 4217 for good cause, which includes rehabilitation of the defendant. Applying Rule
35(b) here to reduce Defendant’s sentence due to rehabilitation “would undermine Section 4217
and the important role it assigns to the DOC and the Board of Parole.” Id.
3