IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE ) 

 ) 

v. ) 

 ) I.D. No. 2010001104

 )

DANIEL MOPKINS, ) 

 ) 

Defendant. ) 

ORDER

Submitted: February 8, 2023 

Decided: March 7, 2023

AND NOW TO WIT, this 7th day of March, 2023, upon consideration of

Daniel Mopkins (“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 March 17, 2022, Defendant pled guilty to one count of 

Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony (“PFDCF”) and 

one count of Reckless Endangering First Degree.1

 On June 3, 2022, Defendant 

was sentenced to: (1) for PFDCF, eight years at Level V, suspended after three 

years for transitioning levels of probation; and (2) for Reckless Endangering 

1

 D.I. 13. 
2 

First Degree, five years at Level V, suspended for two years at Level III.

2

2. On January 31, 2023, Defendant filed this Motion for Sentence 

Modification/Reduction, asking for “no probation.”3

 In support, Defendant 

asserts that he is rehabilitated and employable, received funds from a small 

business association, and has been promoting literacy programs through various 

writings and publications. Further, he asserts that no probation would be good 

for “marketing.”4

 

3. Under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b), the Court may reduce a 

sentence of imprisonment on a motion made within ninety days after the 

sentence is imposed.5

 Defendant filed this pending Motion 242 days after the 

sentencing. Defendant’s Motion is time-barred. To overcome the ninety-day 

time bar, Defendant must show that “extraordinary circumstances” forgive the 

tardiness of his Motion.6

 Rehabilitation, employability, receipt of funds, 

promotion of literacy, and marketability do not constitute extraordinary 

circumstances to justify the delay. 

2

 D.I. 15. 

3

 D.I. 16. 

4 Id. 5

 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b). 

6 See Colon v. State, 900 A.2d 635, 638 (Del. 2006); Washington v. State, 2023 WL 2028713, at 

*2 (Del. Feb. 15, 2023) (citing State v. Diaz, 2015 WL 1741768, at *2 (Del. Apr. 15, 2015) 

(explaining that extraordinary circumstances are the circumstances that “specifically justify the 

delay; are entirely beyond a petitioner’s control; and have prevented the applicant from seeking 

the remedy on a timely basis.”).
3 

4. Moreover, Defendant’s request is statutorily barred. 11 Del. C.

4204(l) requires this Court to impose the period of custodial supervision as 

imposed.

7

5. The Sentence was appropriate for all the reasons stated at the time 

of sentencing. 

IT IS SO ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Sentence 

Modification is DENIED.

/s/Vivian L. Medinilla

 Vivian L. Medinilla

Judge 

oc: Prothonotary

cc: Defendant

Investigative Services

7

 11 Del. C. 4204(l) (“Except when the court imposes a life sentence or sentence of death, 

whenever a court imposes a period of incarceration at Level V custody for 1 or more offenses 

that totals 1 year or more, then that court must include as part of its sentence a period of custodial 

supervision at either Level IV, III or II for a period of not less than 6 months to facilitate the 

transition of the individual back into society. The 6-month transition period required by this 

subsection may, at the discretion of the court, be in addition to the maximum sentence of 

imprisonment established by the statute.”); see also Nave v. State, 783 A.2d 120, 122 (Del. 2001) 

(“Section 4204(l) clearly requires the sentencing court to impose a period not less than six 

months of custodial supervision at Level IV, III, or II, i.e., probation, to follow any Level V 

sentence of one year or more.”).