State v. Smith

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
STATE OF DELAWARE )
)
v. )
) I.D. No. 2008003722
LLOYD SMITH, )
)
Defendant. )
ORDER
Submitted: April 27, 2023
Decided: June 7, 2023
AND NOW TO WIT, this 7th day of June 2023, upon consideration of
Lloyd Smith (“Defendant”)’s Motion for Modification/Reduction of Sentence
under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35, the sentence imposed upon the
Defendant, and the record in this case, it appears to the Court that:
1. On August 26, 2021, Defendant pled guilty to Possession of a Firearm
During the Commission of a Felony (PFDCF), Carrying a Concealed Deadly
Weapon (CCDW), and Conspiracy Second Degree.1 On November 5, 2021, for the
PFDCF charge, Defendant was sentenced to ten years at Level V, suspended after
four years, followed by one year at Level IV DOC discretion and transitioning Level
III of probation.2 For the CCDW charge, Defendant was sentenced to two years at
Level V, suspended for two years at Level III; and, for the Conspiracy Second
1
D.I. 23.
2
D.I. 30.
Degree charge, one year at Level V, suspended for one year at Level II probation.3
2. On April 8, 2022, Defendant filed his first Rule 35 motion seeking
reduction of his Level V sentence. 4 On October 18, 2022, Defendant filed another
Rule 35 motion, requesting to modify his Level IV sentence terms. 5 Both motions
were denied.6
3. On April 24, 2023, Defendant again filed this Motion for Modification.
This time, Defendant asks the Court to remove the Level IV sentence and allow
Defendant to receive the Level III sentence for two years after completion of his
Level V sentence.
4. Under Rule 35(b), the Court may reduce the “term or conditions of
partial confinement or probation, at any time.” 7 But, “[t]he court will not consider
repetitive requests for reduction of sentence.” 8 A motion is considered repetitive
when it “is preceded by an earlier Rule 35(b) motion, even if the subsequent motion
raises new arguments.” 9 The repetitive motion bar applies to the request for
reduction or modification of a term of partial confinement or probation.10
3
D.I. 30.
4
D.I. 29.
5
D.I. 30.
6
D.I. 31.
7
Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b).
8
Id. (emphasis added).
9
State v. Culp, 152 A.3d 141, 144 (Del. 2016).
10
See Teat v. State, 31 A.3d 77, 2011 WL 4839042, at *1 (Del. 2011) (Table); State v. Weidlow,
2015 WL 1142583, at *1–2 (Del. Super. Ct. Mar. 11, 2015).
2
Defendant’s request is barred as repetitive. Rule 35 does not allow the Court to use
its discretion to ignore this bar.11
IT IS SO ORDERED that the Motion for Modification of Sentence is
SUMMARILY DISMISSED.
/s/ Vivian L. Medinilla
Vivian L. Medinilla
Judge
oc: Prothonotary
cc: Defendant
Department of Justice
Investigative Services
11
Culp, 152 A.3d at 145 (reversing the Superior Court’s decision to grant the defendant’s motion
for modification where the motion was repetitive and untimely).
3