IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE, ) )

v. ) ID No. 160 3001327 ) ADAM JABLONSKI , ) ) Defendant. )

Date Submitted: May 28 , 2020 Date Decided: June 17 , 2020

ORDER

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

record in this case , IT APPEARS THAT:

1. On September 2 8 , 201 6 , Defendant pled guilty to Criminally Negligent

Homicide and Possession of a Firearm by a Person Prohibited (“PFBPP”)

. 1 By

Order dated March 2 , 201 7 , effective February 29, 2016 , Defendant was sentenced
as follows: for Criminally Negligent Homicide, 8 years at Level V, suspended after
8 months, for 6 months at supervision Level IV (DOC Discretion), followed by 18
months at supervision Level III; for PFBPP, 8 years at Level V, suspended after 1
year, for 1 year at supervision Level II

. 2

1 IN16

- 03

- 0699

- I: Criminally Negligent Homicide; IN16

- 02

- 1057: PFBPP PABPP. 2 D.I. 6.5

2. On July 25 , 20 19 , Defendant was found in violation of probation
(“VOP”) on this probation, and was resentenced as follows: for VOP Criminally
Negligent Homicide , VN16

- 03

- 0699

- 01 , 7 years 3 months 12 days at Level V,

s uspended after 90 days, for 6 months supervision Level IV Work Release, followed
by 1 year at supervision level III; for VOP PFBPP , VN16

- 02

- 1057

- 01 , 7 years at
Level V, suspended after 90 days, for 1 year at supervision Level III

. 3

3. On May 8, 2020, upon motion by Defendant and without opposition

f r o m the State , the Court modified Defendant’s V OP Criminally Negligent

Homicide sentence from 6 months at Level IV Work Release to 6 months at Level
IV (DOC Discretion)

. 4

4

. On May 28, 2020, Defendant filed the instant Motion , now asking the

Court to suspend his Level I V ( DOC Discretion ) sentence and allow him to begin

the Level III portion of sentence

. 5 In support of his Motion, Defendant cites his
vulnerability to COVID

- 19 , his pending employ ment upon release , his successful
competition of multiple rehabilitative programs , and his desire to return to his
family

. 6

3 D.I. 14. 4 D.I. 20

. A ll remaining terms and conditions of Defendant’s sentences remain the same

. See D.I. 22. 5 D.I. 2 1. 6 Id. In his Motio n , Defendant asserts that he has successfully completed the following programs: Project New Start , Alternatives to Violence, Thresholds, and Lifeskills. The Court notes that Defendant cited similar support to modify his sentence in his May 4, 2020 Motion for Modification of Sentence, which the Court considered in its May 8, 2020 Order. See D.I. 17, 20.5

5

. Superior Court Criminal Rule 35 governs motions for m odification of
sentence. Under Rule 35(b), “[t]he Court may . . . reduce the . . . term or conditions
of partial confinement or probation, at any time.” 7 The Court will not consider
repetitive requests for reduction or modification of sentence. 8

6. Although Defendant’s Motion is not time

- barred because he seeks to
modify the Level IV portion of his sentence , the Motion is procedurally barred due
to its repetitive nature

. This is Defendant’s third request to modify his sentence
under Rule 35(b)

. 9 In addition, t he Court has already modified Defendant’s

sentence once

. 10

7

. The Court finds that Defendant’s sentence is app ropriate for all the

reasons stated at the time of s entencing.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Third

Motion for Sentence Modification is DENIED.


# Jan R. Jurden

Jan R. Jurden, President Judge

Original to Prothonotary:
cc: Adam Jablonski (SBI# 00 720360 ) Annemarie H. Puit , DAG

7 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b). 8 Id. 9 See D.I. 15 , 17, 21

. 10 See D.I. 22.