1 

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE, )

) 

Plaintiff, )

) I.D. Nos.: 2101011771 

v. ) 1909003409

) 

ENOCH JOHNSON, ) 

) 

Defendants.

ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION 

FOR MODIFICATION OF SENTENCE

On March 6, 2024, the Defendant Enoch Johnson, filed a Motion for 

Modification of Sentence under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35. Having 

considered the Defendant’s Motion and this Court’s review of the record, it 

appears to the Court that:

1. On September 17, 2021, the Defendant pled guilty to two charges: Robbery

First Degree (N21-06-0030-I) and Possession of a Firearm During the

Commission of a Felony (“PFDCF”) (N21-06-0927-I).

2. As to the Robbery First charge, Defendant was sentenced to twenty-five (25)

years at Level V, suspended after three (3) years at Level V for six (6) months

at Level IV, followed by two (2) years at Level III. The three (3) year Level V

time is a minimum mandatory sentence. As to the PFDCF charge, the Court

sentenced Defendant to twenty-five (25) years at Level V, suspended after three
2

(3) years at Level V for six (6) months at Level IV, followed by two (2) years 

at Level III. Like the Robbery charge, the three (3) year Level V time is also a 

minimum mandatory sentence. As such, Defendant’s sentence reflects a 

minimum mandatory sentence of six (6) years.

3. Johnson has filed two prior motions for sentence modification. The first 

modification was filed in May 2022. In that motion filed under Rule 35(a),

Johnson sought to reduce or modify his Level V time from six (6) years to five 

(5) years and to modify or reduce the time and nature of his probationary 

supervision. That Motion was denied by this Court on May 19, 2022. On May 

8, 2023, Johnson filed a second Motion to Reduce and/or Modify his Sentence 

arguing that he cannot be charged with both Possession of a Firearm During 

the Commission of a Felony and First-Degree Robbery. This Court denied that 

Motion in a March 23, 2023 Order. The Supreme Court affirmed on October 

23, 2023.

4. In the instant motion, Defendant asks the Court to eliminate the Level IV 

portion of his probation. 

5. 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.”1 Under Rule 35(b), the Court may consider reducing or modifying 

1 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b).
3

the term or conditions of partial confinement or probation at any time. Rule 

35(b), however, further provides that the Court, ”will not consider repetitive 

requests for reduction of sentence.”2

6. This is Defendant’s second motion under Rule 35(b) for modification of his 

sentence. For this reason alone, the Second Motion is denied as repetitive.3

This procedural bar applies even when the subsequent motion requests a 

reduction or modification of a term of partial confinement of probation.4

7. Even on the merits of this Second Motion, the modification of the probationary 

terms the motion provides no additional information that would warrant a 

reduction or modification of this sentence. Thus, the sentence is appropriate 

for all the reasons stated at the time of the sentencing.

Defendant’s Motion for Modification is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 /s/ Francis J. Jones, Jr. 

Francis J. Jones, Jr., Judge

cc: Original to the Prothonotary

Matthew Hicks, Deputy Attorney General

John S. Malik, Esquire

Mr. Enoch Johnson, SBI No.: 006698084, HRYCF

2 Id.(emphasis added). 3 State v. Burton, 2020 WL 3057888, at *2 (Del. Super. June 5, 2020) (the bar to considering repetitive motions 

has no exceptions). See also Jenkins v. State, 954 A.2d 910, 2008 WL 2721536, at *1 (Del. 2008) (TABLE) 

(affirming the Superior Court’s denial of defendant’s Rule 35(b) motion for modification where Rule 35(b) 

“prohibits the filing of repetitive sentence reduction motions.”); Morrison v. State, 846 A.2d 238, 2004 WL 

716773, at *2 (Del. 2004) (TABLE) (finding that the defendant’s Rule 35(b) motion for modification “was 

repetitive, which also precluded its consideration by the Superior Court.”).

4 Burton, 2020 WL 3057888, at *2; State v. Pryor, 2023 WL 3496289, *2 (Del. Super. May 17, 2023).