IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE, ) )
v. ) ID No. 1501007191 ) WILLIAM B. BAKER , ) ) Defendant. )

Date Submitted: April 28 , 2020 Date Decided: May 29 , 2020

ORDER
U pon consideration of Defendant’s Motion for Modification (“Motion”) , Superior Court Criminal Rule 35, statutory and decisional law, and the record in this

case, IT APPEARS THAT:
1. On September 21, 2015 , Defendant pled guilty Robbery First Degree, Money Laundering, and two counts of Conspiracy Second Degree

. 1 By Order dated January 8, 2016, effective January 14, 2015, Defendant was sentenced as follows:
for Robbery First Degree, IN15

- 01

- 0767 , 10 years at Level V, suspended after 6 years, for 4 ye ars at Level IV (DOC Discretion), suspended after 6 months, for 18 months supervision Level III ; and for Money Laundering, IN15

- 01

- 0761 , 8 years at Level V, suspended after 2 years, for 18 months at supervision Level III; for Conspiracy Second Degree, IN15

- 01

- 0769, 2 years at Level V, suspended for 1 year

1 D.I. 11

.2

at supervision Level III; and for Conspiracy Second Degree, IN15

- 01

- 0762, 2 years at Level V, suspended for 1 year at supervision Level III

. 2

2

. On April 28 , 2020, Defendant filed this Motion, asking the C ourt to suspend the remaining Level V time of his sentence for Money Laundering, IN15

- 01

- 0761, and allow him to begin the Level IV portion of his sentence for Robbery First Degree, IN15

- 01

- 0767

. 3 In addition, Defendant asks the Court to modify the Level IV portion of his sentence to Level IV Home Confinement. 4 In support of his Motion, Defendant cites : (1) his potential exposure to COVID

- 19; (2 ) his participation in the Alternative s to Violence Program; (3) his ServSafe Certification; and (4) his American Traffic Safety Services Association Flagger Certification

. 5

3

. Superior Court Criminal Rule 35 governs motions for modification of sentence. “Under Rule 35(b), a motion for sentence modificati on must be filed within ninety days of sentencing, absent a showing of ‘extraordinary

2 D.I. 15. IN15

- 01

- 0767 is a mandatory minimum sentence of 3 years at Level V pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 832

. Probation is concurrent. 3 D.I. 28. 4 Id. 5 Id.3

circumstances.’” 6 T he Court will not consider repetitive requests for reduction or
modification of sentence. 7

4. This is Defendant’s second request to modify his sent ence under Rule 35(b), and therefore, this Motion is barred as repetitive. 8

5. In addition, t his Motion was filed well beyond 90 day s from the imposition of Defendant’s sentence s , and it is ther efore time

- barred under Rule 35(b).

6

. The Court will consider an application made more than 90 days after the imposition of sentence only in “extraordinary circumstances,” or pursuant to 11
Del. C. § 4217. Delawa re law places a heavy burden on the moving party to establish extraordinary circu mstances in order to “uphold the finality of sentences.” 9 “Extraordinary circumstances” excusing an untimely Rule 35(b) motion are circumstances that “specifically justify the delay, are entirely beyond a petitioner’s control, and have prevented the appli cant from seeking the remedy on a timely
basis.” 10 Mitigating factors that could have been presented at sentencing , exemplary

6 Croll v. State , 2020 WL 1909193, at *1 (Del. Apr. 17, 2020) (TABLE) (affirming the Superior Court’s denial of a motion for modification of sentence where the motion was repetitive and filed beyond the 90

- day limit); see Hewett v. State , 2014 WL 5020251, at *1 (Del. Oct. 7 , 2014) (“When a motion for reduction of sentence is filed within ninety days of sentencing, the Superior Court has broad discretion to decide whether to alter its judgment.”). 7 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b). 8 See D.I. 19, 28

. 9 State v. Diaz , 2015 WL 174176 8, at *2 (Del. Apr. 15, 2015). 10 State v. Culp , 152 A.3d 141, 145 (Del. 2016) (internal quotations omitted) (quoting Diaz , 2015 WL 1741768, at *2).4

conduct , or successful rehabilitation while incarcerated does not constitute “extraordinary circumstances.” 11 Defendant has not se t forth facts establishing “extraordinary circumstances.”

7

. The Court finds Defendant’s sentence s are appropriate for all the reasons stated at the time of sentencing. No additional information has been provided to the Court that would warrant a reduction of modification of these

sentence s
. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s
Motion fo r Modification is DENIED

. 

# Jan R. Jurden
Jan R. Jurden, President Judge

Original to Prothonotary

cc: William B. Baker (SBI# 00414104 ) Jenna R. Milecki , DAG

11 See id. at 145

– 46 (recognizing that participation in educational and rehabilitative prison programs is commendable, but does not by itself constitute “ extraordinary circumstanc es” for purposes of Rule 35(b)).