State v. Nowlin

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
STATE OF DELAWARE, )
)
v. ) ID No. 2202003865
)
WILLIAM NOWLIN, )
)
Defendant. )
Date Submitted: July 12, 2023
Date Decided: August 30, 2023
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
MODIFICATION OF SENTENCE
On this 30th day of August, 2023, upon consideration of Defendant, William
Nowlin’s (“Defendant”) Motion for Sentence Modification (the “Motion”),1 the
sentence imposed upon Defendant, and the record in this case, it appears to the Court
that:
1. On March 13, 2023, Defendant pled guilty to the charges of Unlawful
Sexual Contact in the Third Degree.2 A pre-sentence investigation was Ordered and
on June 2, 2023, Defendant was sentenced to one (1) year at Level V, suspended for
one (1) year at Level III, GPS monitoring, with a hold at Level V until a GPS is
available.3 As special conditions of Defendant’s probation, he was Ordered to have
no contact with any minor under the age of eighteen (18) years of age, be evaluated
1
D.I. 13.
2
D.I. 11.
3
D.I. 18.
for substance abuse and follow any and all recommended treatment, undergo a
mental health evaluation and follow any and all recommended treatment and to
register as a Tier 1 sex offender pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 4121(d)(3). Additionally,
Defendant was Ordered to have no contact with his minor victim, the family of his
minor victim, or the school of his minor victim. Defendant was Ordered to be
evaluated by Department of Corrections (“DOC”) for sex offender treatment
programs while at Level III supervision and must be enrolled in all evaluations
within the first six (6) months of his probation.
2. On June 9, 2023, Defendant filed the instant letter motion for modification
of sentence, requesting the Court remove the GPS monitoring requirement, as his
employment with Amtrak requires him to travel out of state and that is not permitted
while under GPS supervision.4 The State filed opposition, stating that no
documentation has been provided by Defendant showing such employment is in
jeopardy.5 In response, Defendant has submitted one document from a Lenny W.
Buchanan, Vice-Chairman of the United Passenger Rail Federation MNWED-
I.B.T., which appears to be a Union of which Defendant is a member.6 Mr.
Buchanan is neither an employee of Amtrak, so far as the Court can tell, nor is he
Defendant’s supervisor, however, the letter states that Defendant’s employment
4
D.I. 13.
5
D.I. 15.
6
D.I. 16.
2
requires out of state travel, sometimes at little notice to Defendant. Defendant
himself, while represented by counsel, initially submitted this letter directly to the
Court, ex parte, via electronic mail and without a copy to defense counsel. Defense
counsel and the State was immediately informed of the Defendant’s action and
resubmitted the Buchanan letter in the proper format.7
3. The Court once again received ex parte electronic mail communication in
this case from a Shanice Nowlin, who purports to be Defendant’s daughter. This
letter, electronically sent on July 11, 2023, also failed to copy even defense counsel
and sought to provide character support for Defendant with respect to the instant
request for modification of sentence. The Court, yet again, immediately alerted the
State and defense counsel of this contact and gave Defendant the opportunity –
through counsel – to resubmit this letter in the appropriate fashion. Defense counsel
did so, and re-submitted this letter, along with numerous other character letters in
support of Defendant’s instant request in proper letter form, on July 12, 2023.8
4. Under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b), “the court may reduce a
sentence of imprisonment on a motion made within 90 days after the sentence is
imposed. This period shall not be interrupted or extended by an appeal, except that
a motion may be made within 90 days of the imposition of sentence after remand for
7
D.I. 17.
8
D.I. 19.
3
a new trial or for resentencing. The court may decide the motion or defer decision
while an appeal is pending. Further, the Court may decide the motion without
presentation or formal hearing.”9
5. Being as this is Defendant’s first motion to modify his sentence, and it
was filed within ninety (90) days of his sentencing, the motion is timely and will be
considered on its merits.10
6. Although timely, the motion is still without merit. The sentence imposed
by the Court was done so after thoughtful consideration of all parties and all
materials presented at the sentencing hearing. The Court had the benefit of the full
pre-sentence investigation ordered prior to sentencing. All potential SENTAC
aggravators and mitigators were considered in the deliberation of the sentence11 and
the Court crafted a sentence which balanced the offense committed by the Defendant
and the necessary conditions to sufficiently protect both the minor victim and
society. While the Court was aware of Defendant’s employment, it was unaware of
any potential for employment issues the GPS monitoring may pose. However, this
fact does not change the Court’s consideration of the conditions.
9
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b).
10
Superior Court Criminal R. 35.
11
The following SENTAC aggravators were found: Undue Depreciation of
Offense, Lack of Remorse and Offense Against a Child; The SENTAC mitigator of
no prior criminal history was also found.
4
7. Defendant previously pled guilty and was aware that the Court had the
legal authority to sentence him within the bounds of the law, including up to one full
year of incarceration. At that time and pursuant to Criminal Procedural Rule
11(c)(1), the Court addressed Defendant in open court and determined that
Defendant understood the nature of the charge to which the plea was offered and the
potential penalty provided by law. Accordingly, Defendant acknowledged in open
court that the range of possible penalties included any lawful sentence that can be
imposed by the Court.12
8. The specific facts that constituted Defendant’s crime of Unlawful
Sexual Contact Third Degree here were, and still are, alarming and concerning to
the Court. The Defendant, who was in a position of trust, committed a criminal
sexual act against his twelve (12) year old victim. Even more concerning, at the time
of the pre-sentence investigation and at sentencing, Defendant attempted to place
blame on his minor victim. The victim, unfortunately, is not in a position where s/he
has the support and protection of family members, thus the Court structured this
sentence accordingly for specific reasons. The letter from the Union Representative
and the letters of support of Defendant’s character received do not overcome the
careful considerations of the Court that were within its legal authority.
12
D.I. 11.
5
8. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Modification of Sentence is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________
Danielle J. Brennan, Judge
Original to Prothonotary
Cc: James Turner, Esquire, Office of Defense Services
Diana Dunn, Esquire, Department of Justice
Investigative Services
6