State v. Warrington

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
STATE OF DELAWARE, )
)
)
v. ) I.D. # 2309012789
)
LEE D. WARRINGTON, )
)
Defendant. )
Date Submitted: April 21, 2024
Date Decided: June 10, 2024
ORDER DENYING LEE D. WARRINGTON’S
MOTION FOR MODIFICATION
Having considered Lee D. Warrington’s (“Warrington”) Motion for
Modification (the “Motion”), for the following reasons, the Motion is DENIED.
1. On January 25, 2024, Warrington pleaded guilty to one count of
Possession of a Controlled Substance and one count of Resisting Arrest. He was
immediately sentenced, consistent with the sentencing recommendation in the Plea
Agreement, as follows: (1) for Possession of a Controlled Substance, five years at
Level V, suspended after successful completion of the Road to Recovery program,
followed by six months at Level IV home confinement, followed by one year at
Level III; and (2) for Resisting Arrest, two years at Level V, suspended for one year
at Level III.1
1
D.I. 5.
2. On April 21, 2024, Warrington filed the Motion, seeking to eliminate
the Level IV portion of his sentence and instead, permit him to serve six months at
Level III on GPS, followed by one year at Level III with no GPS.2 Warrington
argues that Level III GPS monitoring will allow him to secure sober-living housing
after he is released, enable him to pursue a welding certificate from Del-Tech while
working full-time, and enable him to attend rehabilitation programs, all of which
will be hindered if he is required to serve Level IV home confinement.
3. Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b) provides that the Court “may
reduce a sentence of imprisonment on a motion made within 90 days after the
sentence is imposed.” The Court may consider reducing the term or conditions of
partial confinement or probation at any time.3
4. Rule 35(b) places the burden of proof on “the movant to establish cause
to modify a lawfully imposed sentence.”4 While the rule does not set forth specific
criteria which must be met to sustain this burden of proof, “‘common sense dictates
that the Court may modify a sentence if present circumstances indicate that the
previously imposed sentence is no longer appropriate.’”5 The determination of
whether to modify a sentence is left to the sound discretion of the Court.6
2
D.I. 6.
3
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b).
4
State v. Evans, 2024 WL 36518, at *2 (Del. Super. Jan. 3, 2024).
5
Id. (citing State v. Bailey, 2017 WL 8787504, at *1 (Del. Super. Oct. 3, 2017)).
6
State v. Garfield, 2023 WL 8234371, at *2 (Del. Super. Nov. 28, 2023).
2
5. This is Warrington’s first motion for a sentence modification, and it
seeks modification of the portion of his sentence that requires partial confinement.
Thus, there are no procedural bars to the Motion.
6. The Court imposed a sentence to which Warrington agreed in the Plea
Agreement. At the time of sentencing, six months on home confinement was an
integral part of the sentence. While the Court commends Warrington for desiring to
seek employment, counseling, and further assistance upon his release from Level V,
he has provided no basis for the Court to modify his sentence.
7. The Court finds that Warrington’s sentences continue to be
appropriate. Accordingly, the Court exercises its discretion and DENIES the
Motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
June 10, 2024
/s/Kathleen M. Miller
Judge Kathleen M. Miller
3