State v. Jablonski

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
STATE OF DELAWARE, )
)
v. ) ID No. 1603001327
)
ADAM JABLONSKI, )
)
Defendant. )
Date Submitted: May 28, 2020
Date Decided: June 17, 2020
ORDER
Upon consideration of Defendant’s Third 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 September 28, 2016, Defendant pled guilty to Criminally Negligent
Homicide and Possession of a Firearm by a Person Prohibited (“PFBPP”). 1 By
Order dated March 2, 2017, effective February 29, 2016, Defendant was sentenced
as follows: for Criminally Negligent Homicide, 8 years at Level V, suspended after
8 months, for 6 months at supervision Level IV (DOC Discretion), followed by 18
months at supervision Level III; for PFBPP, 8 years at Level V, suspended after 1
year, for 1 year at supervision Level II.2
1
IN16-03-0699-I: Criminally Negligent Homicide; IN16-02-1057: PFBPP PABPP.
2
D.I. 6.
2. On July 25, 2019, Defendant was found in violation of probation
(“VOP”) on this probation, and was resentenced as follows: for VOP Criminally
Negligent Homicide, VN16-03-0699-01, 7 years 3 months 12 days at Level V,
suspended after 90 days, for 6 months supervision Level IV Work Release, followed
by 1 year at supervision level III; for VOP PFBPP, VN16-02-1057-01, 7 years at
Level V, suspended after 90 days, for 1 year at supervision Level III.3
3. On May 8, 2020, upon motion by Defendant and without opposition
from the State, the Court modified Defendant’s VOP Criminally Negligent
Homicide sentence from 6 months at Level IV Work Release to 6 months at Level
IV (DOC Discretion).4
4. On May 28, 2020, Defendant filed the instant Motion, now asking the
Court to suspend his Level IV (DOC Discretion) sentence and allow him to begin
the Level III portion of sentence.5 In support of his Motion, Defendant cites his
vulnerability to COVID-19, his pending employment upon release, his successful
competition of multiple rehabilitative programs, and his desire to return to his
family.6
3
D.I. 14.
4
D.I. 20. All remaining terms and conditions of Defendant’s sentences remain the same. See
D.I. 22.
5
D.I. 21.
6
Id. In his Motion, Defendant asserts that he has successfully completed the following programs:
Project New Start, Alternatives to Violence, Thresholds, and Lifeskills. The Court notes that
Defendant cited similar support to modify his sentence in his May 4, 2020 Motion for Modification
of Sentence, which the Court considered in its May 8, 2020 Order. See D.I. 17, 20.
5
5. Superior Court Criminal Rule 35 governs motions for modification of
sentence. Under Rule 35(b), “[t]he Court may . . . reduce the . . . term or conditions
of partial confinement or probation, at any time.” 7 The Court will not consider
repetitive requests for reduction or modification of sentence. 8
6. Although Defendant’s Motion is not time-barred because he seeks to
modify the Level IV portion of his sentence, the Motion is procedurally barred due
to its repetitive nature. This is Defendant’s third request to modify his sentence
under Rule 35(b). 9 In addition, the Court has already modified Defendant’s
sentence once.10
7. The Court finds that Defendant’s sentence is appropriate for all the
reasons stated at the time of sentencing.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Third
Motion for Sentence Modification is DENIED.
Jan R. Jurden
Jan R. Jurden, President Judge
Original to Prothonotary:
cc: Adam Jablonski (SBI# 00720360)
Annemarie H. Puit, DAG
7
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b).
8
Id.
9
See D.I. 15, 17, 21.
10
See D.I. 22.
5