IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE,

 v.

JEFFREY A. KING,

 Defendant. 

)

) 

) Crim. A. No. 1909016237

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

COMMISSIONER’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION DENYING 

DEFENDANT JEFFREY A. KING’S MOTION FOR 

MODIFICATION OF SENTENCE

This 23rd day of May, 2024, upon consideration of Defendant’s Motion for 

Modification of Sentence;1the State’s Response to Defendant’s Motion for 

Modification of Sentence;2 Defendant’s Second Supplement to the Motion to 

Modify Sentence;3 Defendant’s Third Supplement to the Motion to Modify 

Sentence;4 Defendant’s Fourth Supplement to the Motion to Modify Sentence;5 the 

Department of Corrections (“DOC”) Preferred Medication List;

6

 Defendant’s 

Memorandum Argument Filed in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Modify 

1

 Docket Item (“D.I.”) 68. 

2

 D.I. 72.

3

 D.I. 97.

4

 D.I. 79.

5

 D.I. 80.

6

 D.I. 81.
2

Sentence;7the State’s Supplemental Briefing on Motion for Sentence Modification;8

and the record in this matter, the following is my Report and Recommendation.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On September 30, 2019, a New Castle County Grand Jury indicted Defendant

Jeffrey A. King (“Defendant”) for two counts of Unlawful Sexual Intercourse First 

Degree.9 On May 10, 2022, Defendant pled guilty to one count of Unlawful Sexual 

Intercourse Third Degree and one count of Unlawful Sexual Penetration Third 

Degree.10 On October 14, 2022, this Court sentenced Defendant to an aggregate 

term of imprisonment of fifteen years at Level V, suspended after serving ten years, 

followed by two years Level III probation.11 This Court’s sentence Order noted the 

following aggravating and mitigating factors: need for correctional treatment, undue 

depreciation of the offense, and Defendant’s physical/mental impairment.12

On December 12, 2022, Defendant filed a Motion for Home 

Confinement/Compassionate Release pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 

35(b).

13 In support of the Motion, Defendant cited his declining health, medical 

7 D.I. 91.

8 D.I. 94.

9 D.I. 2. On May 5, 2022, the State filed an Information charging Defendant with one count of 

Unlawful Sexual Intercourse Third Degree and one count of Unlawful Sexual Penetration Third 

Degree. D.I. 54.

10

 D.I. 55. 

11

 D.I. 58.

12

 Id., p. 6. 

13

 D.I. 62.
3

complications, and alleged poor medical treatment, including DOC’s failure to 

properly administer prescription medication.14 On January 4, 2023, this Court 

denied Defendant’s Motion for Modification of Sentence.

15

On February 22, 2023, Defendant filed a second Motion for Modification of 

Sentence (“Motion”) pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b).

16

 On 

September 7, 2023, this Court held an evidentiary hearing. On November 22, 2023, 

Defendant’s counsel filed a Memorandum in Support of his Motion for Sentence 

Modification.

17

 On December 18, 2023, the State submitted its Supplemental 

Briefing Following the Hearing on a Motion for Sentence Modification.18 

II. BACKGROUND FACTS19

On August 4, 1993, a woman (the “Woman”) was attacked in Newark, 

Delaware. The attacker took her clothing and her identification card. The attacker 

penetrated her vaginally with his penis. The attacker then fled with her personal 

items including the Woman's “North Carolina driver's license, University of 

Delaware ID, ‘Carolina’ t-shirt, denim shorts and panties.” The Woman immediately 

reported the attack to police. The police initiated an investigation. The Woman 

14

 Id.

15

 D.I. 64.

16

 D.I. 68. 

17

 D.I. 91.

18

 D.I. 94.

19

 These facts were first recited in this Court’s opinion granting in part, and denying in part, 

Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Evidence. D.I. 45, State v. Jeffrey King, 2021 WL 211150, at *1-

2 (Del. Super. Jan. 21, 2021). 
4

underwent a Sexual Assault Nurse Examination (“SANE”) during which her vagina 

was swabbed for DNA. The police were unable to solve this case in 1993.

The police reopened and reassigned the case to Detective Gerasimov in 

November 2017. Investigators identified Mr. King as a suspect.

In August 2019, Newark Police Department detectives conducted surveillance 

on Mr. King, his residence and place of employment. On August 14, 2019, Mr. King 

purchased a Wawa iced tea in a plastic bottle, drank from the bottle and placed the 

bottle in a plastic Wawa bag. Mr. King subsequently discarded the plastic Wawa 

bag containing the empty plastic Wawa iced tea bottle in a Walmart trash can.

Investigators seized the plastic Wawa bag from the Walmart trash can and 

sent the Wawa iced tea bottle to the Delaware Division of Forensic Science to 

process for DNA evidence. The Division of Forensic Science prepared a report 

comparing swabs from the Wawa iced tea bottle to the vaginal swabs from the SANE 

kit. The report indicated that the vaginal swab matched the bottle sample. The 

probability of randomly selecting an unrelated individual with a matching DNA 

profile was one in > 7,000,000,000,000 (7 trillion). Using this information, the

Newark Police Department obtained a search warrant permitting them to obtain 

DNA from Mr. King by buccal swab or blood draw.20

20

 D.I. 34, State’s Response to Defendant’s Amended Motion to Suppress Buccal Swabbing, at 

3. (“The Defendant’s DNA profile was compared to the DNA profile taken from K.V. during the 
5

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Motions for Modification of Sentence are governed by Superior Court 

Criminal Rule 35(b) (“Rule 35(b)”). Rule 35(b) contains two procedural bars: the 

first precludes the consideration of repetitive motions for sentence modification;

21

the second requires a Defendant to file a motion for sentence modification within 

ninety days of the imposition or sentence, and if a Defendant fails to comply with 

the ninety day deadline, he must demonstrate “extraordinary circumstances” for this 

Court to consider the merits of an untimely filed motion.22 Both procedural bars are 

in play here. As is discussed infra, this is Defendant’s second Motion for sentence 

modification, and therefore the Motion is procedurally barred as successive. 

Moreover, even if the successive Motion was not procedurally barred, it was filed 

more than ninety days after the imposition of sentence, and Defendant has failed to

demonstrate “extraordinary circumstances” to avoid the application of the Rule

35(b)’s second procedural bar. 

IV. PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS

Defendant’s Motion is premised upon his claim of having a “serious medical 

condition and infirmary,”23 and an assertion that DOC exhibits a “repeated and 

SANE exam, which again produced a match, with the same likelihood of randomly selecting an 

unrelated individual with a DNA profile matching that of the sample of one in seven trillion.”) 

21

 State v. Redden, 111 A.3d 602, 608-09 (Del. Super. Feb. 16, 2015). 

22 State v. Comrie, 2017 WL 1403324, at *1 (Del. Super. Apr. 17, 2017).

23 D.I. 68, Defendant’s February 22, 2023 Motion to Modify Sentence, ¶ 6. 
6

continual failure to provide reasonable medical care.”

24

 Since his incarceration, 

Defendant claims DOC has (1) chronically failed to provide him with his medication 

as ordered by his personal doctors;

25

 and (2) “made ineffective substitutions for 

certain medications in opposition to his personal physicians’ and specialists’ 

recommendations and failed entirely to prescribe others.”

26 Additionally, Defendant 

argues that if this Court were aware of his medical condition(s) at the time he first 

filed the Motion for Home Confinement/Compassionate Release on December 12, 

2022, he would have received a “lesser sentence.”

27

 Defendant contends he is not a 

“substantial risk to society,” and under these specific circumstances his medical 

condition constitutes “good cause for compassionate release.”28 Defendant seeks to 

be resentenced to serve the balance of his sentence at home confinement in

Pennsylvania.

The State contends the Defendant has failed to establish “extraordinary

circumstances” to justify relief pursuant to Rule 35(b). First, the State argues

Defendant’s medical needs are neither unique nor significantly complicated, and

DOC medical staff regularly treats chronically ill inmates who are in equally poor 

24

 Id. at ¶ 7.

25 Id. at ¶ 12. 

26

 Id. at ¶ 15. 

27

 Id. 

28 Id. at ¶¶ 20-21.
7

(or worse) medical conditions than Defendant.29 Second, DOC has experience 

administering prescribed medications for the chronically ill.

30

 Third, to the extent 

Defendant’s medical records at DOC were incomplete, those documentation issues, 

as well as prescription medication administration issues, have been corrected.31 

Fourth, the State asserts Defendant is receiving reasonable and appropriate medical 

care.

32

 And finally, the State claims the Defendant cannot prove his worsening 

conditions are the result of any actions taken by the DOC.33

V. DISCUSSION

Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b) may provide an inmate relief from a 

previously imposed sentence, but it includes two procedural bars in recognition of 

this Court’s interest in upholding the finality of sentences. Rule 35(b) provides, in 

pertinent part:

RULE 35. CORRECTION OR REDUCTION OF SENTENCE

(b) Reduction of Sentence. The court may reduce a sentence of

imprisonment on a motion made within 90 days after the sentence is

imposed. This period shall not be interrupted or extended by an appeal,

except that a motion may be made within 90 days of the imposition of

sentence after remand for a new trial or for resentencing. The court may

decide the motion or defer decision while an appeal is pending. The

court will consider an application made more than 90 days after the

imposition of sentence only in extraordinary circumstances or pursuant

29

 D.I. 94, State’s Supplemental Briefing Following the Hearing on a Motion for Sentence 

Modification, at 3-4. 

30

 Id.

31

 Id. at 4-6.

32

 Id.

33

 Id. at 6-7.
8

to 11 Del. C. § 4217. The court will not consider repetitive requests for 

reduction of sentence. The court may suspend the costs or fine, or 

reduce the fine or term or conditions of partial confinement or 

probation, at any time. A motion for reduction of sentence will be 

considered without presentation, hearing or argument unless otherwise 

ordered by the court.34

As the moving party, a Defendant who files an untimely motion for sentence 

modification bears the “heavy burden” of establishing “extraordinary 

circumstances.”

35

 As this Court explained in State v. Jones, 

The term ‘extraordinary circumstances’ is generally defined as ‘[a] 

highly unusual set of facts that are not commonly associated with a 

particular thing or event.’ ‘And for the purposes of Rule 35(b), 

‘extraordinary circumstances’ have been found only ‘when an offender 

faces some genuinely compelling change in circumstances that makes 

a resentencing urgent.’ In short, Rule 35(b) is a rule limited to 

reconsideration and altering of a sentence after the 90-day motion 

deadline ‘only when there is a truly compelling change in that inmate's 

individual circumstances that presents an urgent need for revision of 

the sentence's terms.’36

Here, Defendant asks the Court to consider Defendant’s chronic health conditions in 

the context of his claim that DOC is providing inappropriate, deficient, and untimely 

medical care, including the untimely, undocumented, and erroneous administration 

of prescription medications, to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances warranting 

consideration of a sentence modification.

34

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

35

 State v. Jones, 2020 WL 4483673 at *2 (Del. Super. Aug. 4, 2020). 

36

 Id. (internal citations omitted). 
9

1. Procedural Bars.

Before the Court considers the merits of a Rule 35(b) motion, a Defendant 

must overcome the procedural bars of Rule 35(b). Those procedural bars are 

addressed below. 

a. Repetitive Rule 35 Motions.

Rule 35(b) contains a procedural bar when a Defendant submits “repetitive 

requests for reduction of sentence.”

37

 As this Court noted in State v. Redden,

38

“found in Rule 35(b) is [an] unforgiving bar: ‘[t]he [C]ourt will not consider 

repetitive requests for reduction of sentence.’ . . . . this bar is absolute and flatly 

‘prohibits repetitive requests for reduction of sentence.’”39 

Defendant filed his first Motion to Modify Sentence on December 12, 2022.40 

In that motion, Defendant raised virtually identical claims for relief to the ones he 

raises here: Defendant suffers from “permanent, irreversible, degenerative, 

progressive [and] debilitating disease[s];” He has been diagnosed with and has been 

treated in the community for degenerative joint disease, COPD, and severe asthma; 

and generalized “Medication/Environment Issues”41 due to his imprisonment. He 

37 Id.

38 Redden, 111 A.3d at 608-09 (citing Thomas v. State, 2002 WL 31681804, at *1 (Del. Supr.

Nov. 25, 2002)).

39

 Id. (internal citations omitted). See also State v. Riddock, 2022 WL 17820366, at *7 n. 117

(Del. Super. Dec. 19, 2022) (“[U]nlike the 90-day jurisdictional limit with its “extraordinary 

circumstances” exception, the bar to repetitive motions has no exception.”)

40

 D.I. 62.

41

 Id. at ¶ 4.
10

also claims DOC is incapable of providing him with appropriate medications and 

treatment, including “specialist prescribed medications.”42 As noted supra, on 

January 4, 2023, this Court denied Defendant’s first motion for sentence 

modification.

On February 22, 2023, Defendant filed this second Motion for sentence 

modification.

43

 As such, this Motion is procedurally barred as successive.

44

 

b. Defendant’s second, untimely filed Motion fails to establish 

“extraordinary circumstances.”

Assuming arguendo that Defendant’s Motion is not procedurally barred as 

successive, Rule 35(b) requires that an application to modify a sentence be filed

within ninety days after sentence is imposed. Here, Defendant’s motion was filed 

on February 22, 2023, more than ninety days after sentencing.

However, Rule 35(b) contains an exception to the ninety day limitation - when 

a motion to reduce a sentence is filed more than ninety days after the imposition of 

sentence, “the Court will consider whether ‘extraordinary circumstances’ exist that 

would warrant consideration of an untimely Motion for Sentence Reduction.”45

42

 Id. 

43

 D.I. 68.

44

 See also Teat v. State, 2011 WL 4839042, at *1 (Del. Oct. 12, 2011) (“[Defendant’s] Motion 

for Sentence modification may be affirmed on the independent and alternative ground[] that the 

[second] motion was repetitive”); Jenkins v. State, 2008 WL 2721536, at *1 (Del. July 14, 2008) 

(“Rule 35(b) also prohibits the filing of repetitive sentence reduction motions. . .. It is clear that 

Jenkins’ motion was both repetitive and untimely”).

45 Comrie, 2017 WL 1403324, at *1.
11

Extraordinary circumstances are defined as “[a] highly unusual set of facts that are 

not commonly associated with a particular thing or event.”46 As noted earlier, “[a]

heavy burden is placed on the inmate to establish ‘extraordinary circumstances’ in 

order to uphold the finality of sentences.”47 

Delaware law provides the DOC is tasked to provide reasonable standards and 

reasonable health, medical and dental services for an inmate in its custody. 

Specifically, Title 11 of the Delaware Code, § 6536(a) provides, in pertinent part:

The [DOC] shall promulgate reasonable standards, and shall establish 

reasonable health, medical and dental services, for each institution, 

including preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic measures on both an 

out-patient and hospital basis for all types of patients. The nature and 

extent of such medical and dental services shall be determined by the 

Commissioner of Correction in consultation with the Bureau Chief of 

Correctional Healthcare Services. The [DOC] may authorize, under 

regulations, inmates to be taken, with or without guard, to a medical 

institution or facility outside the institution.48

Based on a plain reading of § 6536(a), Delaware law does not: (1) permit an 

inmate in the care of DOC to demand or insist on treatment by their personal 

physician(s); (2) require DOC medical staff to adopt treatment plans which may have 

been crafted for an inmate by their personal physicians; or (3) require DOC to 

administer a particular prescription medication regimen recommended by an 

46 Jones, 2020 WL 4483673, at *2 (citing State v. Diaz, 2015 WL 1741768, at *2 (Del. Apr. 15, 

2015)).

47 Id.

48 11 Del. C. § 6536(a).
12

inmate’s personal physician. That being said, in the context of a Rule 35(b) motion, 

extraordinary circumstances have been found when there is a repeated and continual 

failure to provide reasonable medical care to persons under the control of DOC.

49

Defendant asserts he has established extraordinary circumstances to overcome 

the exception to the ninety-day limitation, and this Court should consider the merits

of his claims and grant him relief. Defendant argues: (1) DOC’s “repeated and 

continual failure to provide reasonable medical care” constitutes “extraordinary

circumstances” warranting a modification of his sentence;

50 (2) DOC cannot 

properly administer prescription medications;51 (3) DOC improperly declined to 

prescribe or substituted medications which had been prescribed by his personal 

physicians before his incarceration;52 and (4) if this Court were aware of Defendant’s 

health conditions in the context of DOC’s alleged substandard care, it would have 

granted his prior motion for sentence modification.

53

 Each of these claims will be 

addressed infra.

(1)Defendant’s claim of uniquely complicated medical needs.

Defendant argues that his “uniquely complicated medical needs” impede 

DOC’s ability to provide him reasonable health and medical services. Prior to being 

49

 See State v. DeRoche, 2003 WL 22293654, at *3 (Del. Super. Aug. 29, 2003).

50

 D.I. 68, Motion to Modify Sentence, ¶ 7.

51

 Id. at ¶¶ 13-14. 

52

 Id. at ¶ 15.

53

 D.I. 91, Memorandum Argument in Support of Jeffrey King’s Motion to Modify Sentence at 

10-11.
13

incarcerated, Defendant was diagnosed with: (a) intention tremors; (b) severe 

asthma; (c) chronic bronchitis; (d) chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 

(“COPD”); (e) sleep apnea; (f) lumbar spondylosis; and (g) radiculopathy.

54

Defendant has suffered from all of these infirmities long before his incarceration at 

DOC.55 

To support Defendant’s claims, at the September 7, 2023 evidentiary hearing, 

Defendant offered the testimony of Dr. Zabir Zanjani, MD, Dr. Justin Roh, MD, and 

Dr. Robert Satriale, MD, three physicians who had been treating Defendant’s 

conditions in the community prior to his incarceration. The testimony of each 

physician will be briefly discussed below.

Dr. Zabir Zanjani (“Dr. Zanjani”) testified that Defendant has suffered from 

tremors since 2011, and Defendant’s tremors are a progressive condition which, if 

left untreated, can become disabling. 56 And, the prognosis for Defendant is guarded 

-- even if he takes his medications as prescribed, the tremors are expected to 

54

 D.I. 68, Defendant’s Motion, Exh. 3.

55

 Id. Defendant also has a medical history which includes severe alcohol abuse, which resulted 

in a neurocognitive disorder adversely affecting Defendant’s short- and long-term memory.

56

 D.I. 96, Sept. 7, 2023 Evidentiary Hrg. Tr. at 4:16 – 5:10. In fact, Defendant attributes his 

worsening tremors to a bout of COVID in January 2020, not to any event or condition caused by 

DOC. Id. at 185:3-13. 
14

progressively worsen.57 Dr. Zanjani treated Defendant’s tremors with daily 

medications -- Clonazepam, Gabapentin and Primidone.58 

Dr. Justin Roh (“Dr. Roh”) treated Defendant in the community for chronic 

low back pain and left leg pain.

59

 The underlying cause of Defendant’s pain is 

degenerative disk disease,60 which, if left untreated, may become debilitating.61

Potential progressive treatments for degenerative disk disease include physical 

therapy, prescription medication, interventional treatment (injections), and 

surgery.

62

According to Dr. Roh, in 2022 Defendant was ordered to complete physical 

therapy to address his back and leg pain, but Defendant believed physical therapy 

made his pain worse, so it was discontinued.

63 Next, Dr. Roh prescribed Defendant

Gabapentin to “control the pain a little bit better.”

64 Specifically, Defendant was 

prescribed 600 milligrams of Gabapentin three times daily, which he described as

57 According to Dr. Zanjani the prescribed medications were treating tremor symptoms but were 

not “curing anything.” Id. at 8:21-23. 

58

 Id. at 20:7-11. As discussed supra, DOC substituted Topiramate for Clonazepam, but according 

to the Defendant, the Topiramate “did not help much.” Id. at 18:7-21. Defendant also told Dr. 

Zanjani that Gabapentin was not helping treat the tremors. Id. at 7:6-9. 

59 Id. at 26:7-10.

60

 Id. at 48:20-23. Defendant’s spouse, Jessica King, testified that Defendant suffered back pain 

ever since they first met in 2017, and attributed his pain to his career as a truck driver. Id. at 201:5-

13. 

61

 Id. at 26:14-21.

62

 Id. at 27:4-12. Dr. Roh described a “multimodal approach” to treating this condition, where 

several different treatments are combined. If the multimodal approach proved ineffective, then 

surgery was a “last resort” option. Id. at 27:3-12. 

63 Id. at 27:17 – 28:3. 

64

 Id. at 28:3-7.
15

the “most researched or the most sort of recommended dosage.”65 Dr. Roh also 

encouraged Defendant to increase his physical activity in terms of exercise (e.g., 

walking), as exercise would be expected to have a positive impact on Defendant’s 

pain.66 Dr. Roh explained, however, that if Defendant did not exercise and take 

Gabapentin, his physical condition would continue to deteriorate, resulting in 

worsening pain.

67

Finally, Dr. Robert Satriale (“Dr. Satriale”) began treating Defendant in the 

community for asthma, reflux, obstructive sleep apnea and COPD. Defendant’s 

symptoms were “severe” for many years prior to Dr. Satriale’s treatment.

68

 To treat

Defendant’s conditions, in the community, Dr. Satriale prescribed various 

prescription medications, including Dexilant,

69 Montelukast,70 and Breztri.71

 

Additionally, Defendant uses a CPAP machine to manage sleep apnea.72 And, 

regardless of medication administration, Dr. Satriale opined that Defendant will,

65

 Id. at 32:20-22. Dr Roh also acknowledged patients may be prescribed Gabapentin once or 

twice daily. Id. at 38:5- 39:1. 

66

 Id. at 28:9-14. 

67

 Id. at 43:15-22. While the Defendant is currently taking Gabapentin, he is not exercising in 

prison. Despite acknowledging he has the ability to exercise in prison, when asked how much he 

exercised, Defendant stated “slim to none.” Id. at 181:9-13. And Dr. Roh could not attribute 

Defendant’s increased pain to a modification of the administration of Gabapentin by DOC medical 

staff or Defendant’s deteriorating physical condition due to his failure to exercise. Id. at 46:11-

14.

68 Id. at 62:11-20. In 2013, Defendant “had a very severe exacerbation that almost took his life.” 

Id. at 64:2-4.

69 Id. at 66:6-15. 

70 Id. at 66:16-22. 

71 Id. at 67:15-68:8. The DOC substituted Advair for Breztri. Id. at 68:17-69:2. 

72 Id. at 70:11-23. 
16

over time, continue to experience a progressive decline in lung function, resulting in 

permanent impairment.73 And, if Defendant does not take his medications as 

prescribed, he is “at high risk of hospitalization and death.”74

 All of Defendant’s ailments, save for COPD, are long-standing illnesses 

treated with medication. Additionally, while Defendant was encouraged to exercise,

he does not do so. And the prognosis for all of his ailments is guarded – in fact most 

illnesses are expected to progressively worsen. But, Defendant’s ailments are 

common medical conditions, and they are not so unique or complicated that DOC 

cannot administer necessary medications or otherwise provide reasonable medical 

care as required to meet Defendant’s medical needs. And the record does not reflect 

that any prior challenges DOC may have faced in treating Defendant or delivering 

medication to him caused harm or worsened his conditions. 

(2) DOC’s administration of prescription medication.

Defendant’s second complaint is the alleged failure of DOC to properly 

administer medication as prescribed by his personal physicians, and for the first 

eleven months of Defendant’s incarceration, Defendant argues his DOC medical 

records support this claim, as Defendant asserts the records evidence more than 191 

73 Id. at 87:13 - 88:15. Defendant was also prescribed Prednisone and had been on a Prednisone 

regimen for fifteen years. Id. at 90:8-14. Potential side effects of taking Prednisone for an 

extended period of time include thinning bones, high blood pressure, diabetes, weight gain, muscle 

problems, and infections. Id. In fact, Prednisone likely caused Defendant’s bone density issues, 

along with other symptoms. Id. at 69:13-21. 

74

 Id. at 76:16-20. 
17

missed doses of medication.75 This failure to properly administer medication, he 

asserts, constitutes “exceptional circumstances” warranting a sentence modification. 

In response, the State concedes that, for a time, “there were issues [at DOC] 

surrounding the documentation of [prescription] medicine.”76 To provide one 

example, Defendant’s medical records from the month of April 2023 were 

incomplete, evidencing “empty data fields.”77 But, the testimony adduced during 

the evidentiary hearing demonstrates DOC identified and addressed the issues 

surrounding the administration of prescription medication and corrected medical 

record issues through training and documentation modifications. 

Specifically, to address Defendant’s claim of improper prescription 

medication administration, Dr. Awele Maduka-Ezeh (“Dr. Maduka”), the DOC 

Medical Director, testified that she personally reviewed Defendant’s medical 

records, and this review caused her to conduct a DOC-wide review of all prison 

facilities and the processes by which medical staff administered and recorded 

medication distribution. As Dr. Maduka explained, 

75

 Defendant argues this Court should “presume the medications were not administered because 

there is no proof” they were administered. D.I. 91 at 8. But Defendant also suggests this Court 

can consider Defendant’s many grievances filed with DOC as evidence of failure to administer 

medication. But, when reviewing Exhibit 9 from the evidentiary hearing, the grievances include 

numerous copies and duplicates, and when those duplicates and copies are eliminated, there remain 

forty-seven missed or reduced dosages of eleven different medicines in the grievances filed prior 

to September 2023. D.I. 86, Exh. 9.

76

 D.I. 96, at 4. 

77

 Id.
18

So as soon as I saw [Defendant’s records], I was very concerned 

because, again, to [Defendant’s counsel’s] point, it raises the question 

are these meds not being given or are they just not being recorded. And 

so I reached out to the staff at HRYCI to say what is happening. And 

they said, well, they are giving the patients their medicine, but 

unfortunately, which should not have happened, [the nursing staff] are 

not going back to record. And so my first reaction was, is this just for 

this gentleman or do we have a problem across the system.78 

Dr. Maduka then contacted the Howard R. Young Correctional Institution’s 

(“HRYCI”) IT department and discovered medical staff were not properly recording 

medications provided to inmates, including Defendant.

79

 She then expanded the

investigation and discovered similar issues across all DOC facilities.80 As a result 

of these investigations, DOC began holding its medical contractor accountable for 

documentation issues,81 as well as holding DOC facility staff accountable for proper 

medication administration and accurate inmate medical record documentation.82 

DOC also modified the prescription medication reporting system, instituted training 

for the nursing staff, and allowed nursing staff who administered daily medications 

to inmates to edit an individual inmate’s medical records to insure the records

accurately reflect the reasons why a dose of specific medicine may not have been 

consumed by an inmate.

83

78

 D.I. 96, Sept. 7, 2023 Evidentiary Hrg. Tr. at 101:23 – 102:10.

79

 Id. at 102:11-22. 

80

 Id. 

81

 Id. at 104:9-23. 

82

 Id. at 105:1-14. 

83

 Id. at 105:22 – 106:6. 
19

To the extent DOC may not have consistently provided Defendant with 

medication as prescribed by DOC medical staff and did not properly document his 

medical records, those problems were corrected by August of 2023. Defendant

conceded as much during the evidentiary hearing, testifying that since August of 

2023, he received all but one dose of daily medication.84 

Additionally, in considering the above, I find Defendant’s claim of missing 

191 doses of medication to be overstated. As noted above, Delaware law does not 

require DOC to follow or adopt prescription medication orders from an inmate’s 

community-based physicians, and physicians are not required to adopt medications 

orders from another physician. According to Dr. Maduka,

[o]ne physician cannot give an order to another physician. So those –

whatever the doctors write for John Doe, say “I think you should take 

X, Y and Z X number of times, the primary care physician, which 

would be [DOC] Dr. Martin, takes all of that into consideration with 

the patient in front of her and decides do I think these recommendations 

are good for my patient, or do I need to make adjustments?85

Defendant’s claim of 191 missing doses also appears to include the DOC medical 

staff’s modification of Gabapentin administration from three to two doses per day, 

and the elimination of Clonazepam administered twice daily.

86

 Moreover, as noted 

84

 Id. at 196:20 – 197:6. While conceding Defendant’s medical records with respect to prescription 

medication administration were incomplete, Dr. Maduka did not believe Defendant had missed 

191 doses of medication since his incarceration. Id. at 99:14 – 100-1; 101:6-10. 

85

 D.I. 96, Tr. at 117:9-17. 

86 Clonazepam is a medication with addictive qualities, and DOC recognizes there are many 

inmates who enter the prison system with “severe forms of drug abuse.” Id. at 132:1-3. And the 

prison environment contains an illicit market for medicines like Clonazepam, a benzodiazepine 
20

supra, Defendant’s grievance forms do not support Defendant’s claim that he missed 

191 doses of medication.87 The record does not support Defendant’s claim of 

“extraordinary circumstances” which require a reconsideration of the original 

sentence due to prescription medication administration and documentation issues, 

nor has Defendant established any harm from the medications he may not have been 

administered prior to September 2023. 

(3) DOC made inappropriate medication substitutions and 

deletions.

Defendant contends that DOC has made inappropriate substitutions and 

deletions to the prescription regimen he was prescribed by his community-based

physicians, and these substitutions and/or deletions have worked to his detriment, 

compromising his health. As noted above, DOC medical staff is under no obligation 

to follow another doctor’s prescription medication orders, but even assuming that 

obligation exists, the record does not support Defendant’s argument.

Upon admission to HRYCI, the medical staff requested and received from 

Defendant’s family a list of Defendant’s medications, medical providers, and any 

and controlled substance, amongst inmates with drug abuse issues. Id. at 132:4 – 133:1. For these 

reasons, DOC administers Clonazepam as a “last resort” to inmates given its addictive qualities 

and potential for being considered a “currency” in the prison, subject to abuse by inmates. Id. at 

132:11-21. 

87 D.I. 86, Defendant’s Exh. 9, Sept. 7, 2023 Evidentiary Hrg. The grievance forms also evidence 

Defendant’s repeated assertion that he believed DOC was incapable of providing him medical 

treatment as determined by his personal physicians, and a demand that he be permitted to return 

home where he could receive community-based care. Id.
21

pharmacies from which Defendant would obtain medication in the community.

88

 

The DOC then reached out to Defendant’s respective doctor’s offices to determine 

if there were specific concerns the DOC medical staff should be aware of, and neither 

Dr Zanjani, Dr. Roh, nor Dr. Satriale responded to DOC’s inquiry.89 Once 

incarcerated, Dr. Jacqueline Martin, the Medical Director of HRYCI, reviewed 

Defendant’s existing prescriptions and medical records, and conducted an 

examination and evaluation.90 It was after that review that Dr. Martin adjusted some 

of Defendant’s prescription medications. 

Defendant contends he should still receive Clonazepam prescribed by Dr. 

Zanjani. However, Clonazepam is a medication with addictive qualities, and DOC 

is aware there are many inmates who enter the prison system with “severe forms of 

drug abuse.”91 And, the prison environment contains an illicit market amongst 

inmates with drug abuse issues for medicines like Clonazepam, a benzodiazepine 

and controlled substance.92 For these reasons, DOC administers Clonazepam as a 

“last resort” to inmates given its potential for being considered a “currency” in the 

prison, subject to inmate abuse.93 

88

 Id. at 147:1-4. 

89

 Id. at 151:16 – 152:15. 

90

 Id. at 144:8-18. 

91

 Id. at 132:1-3. 

92

 Id. at 132:4 – 133:1. 

93

 Id. at 132:11-21. 
22

Additionally, according to Dr. Martin, Clonazepam was not on the list of 

medications she received from Defendant’s family prior to his incarceration,

94 and 

it was not “on his pharmacy records that [she] received from his pharmacy.”95 

Ultimately, given the addictive nature of Clonazepam and the fact it was not 

identified when Defendant was incarcerated at HRYCI, Dr. Martin substituted 

Topiramate for Clonazepam.

96

Defendant also takes issue with DOC’s modification of the frequency and 

dosages of Gabapentin, prescribed by Dr. Zanjani to treat tremors and by Dr. Roh

for pain management. As noted supra, in the community Defendant was receiving 

600 milligrams of Gabapentin three times daily (1800 milligrams per day). While 

in HRYCI, and after consulting with a clinical pharmacist, Dr. Martin ordered that 

Defendant receive 1200 milligrams of Gabapentin twice a day (2400 milligrams 

daily).

97

Addressing Defendant’s claim that he should be receiving Gabapentin 600 

milligrams three times per day, Dr. Martin acknowledged that while Gabapentin is 

commonly prescribed three times a day, it can be “administered twice a day,” and in 

this case is administered in 1200 milligram doses twice a day – 600 milligrams more 

94 Id. at 144:19 – 145:10. 

95 Id. at 145:10-12. Dr. Martin reviewed pharmacy records from “Rite Aid and another pharmacy.” 

Id. at 147:3-4. 

96

 D.I. 96, Evidentiary Hrg. Tr. at 18:7-21. There is no record evidence that Topiramate was an 

inappropriate substitution for Clonazepam. 

97

 Id. at 7:10-12. 
23

daily than Defendant had been receiving. According to Dr. Martin, it is neither 

proven or disproven that administering Gabapentin twice a day is not as effective as 

three times per day, and while 600 milligrams three times daily may be the “most 

studied dose,” it is appropriate to prescribe it “in other ways.”98 

Additionally, the frequency and dosage of Defendant’s Gabapentin 

medication was made only after Dr. Martin consulted with Dr. Crosby, a clinical 

pharmacist.

99

 Dr. Martin explained:

I had asked Dr. Crosby to look into the dosing of Gabapentin and the 

bioavailability of the medications when it is dosed twice a day, or BID, 

versus when it’s dosed three times a day, TID. And he did that for us 

and gave us the recommendations that we use in, not just in our facility, 

many other facilities, in dosing Gabapentin. 

So it wasn’t, per se, my decision that BID was just better or worse or 

indifferent, it was a decision that was made in general for dosing the 

medication to a large number of patients.100

Dr. Martin’s consultation with Dr. Crosby, a clinical pharmacist, before 

modifying the daily number and dose level of Gabapentin, was reasonable. And, 

neither Dr. Zanjani nor Dr. Roh suggested dosing Gabapentin 1200 milligrams twice 

a day was improper or harmful to Defendant’s health or responsible for Defendant’s 

worsening conditions. 

98

 Id. at 154:12-23. 

99 Id. at 155:11-20.

100

 Id. at 155:22 – 156:6.
24

(4) If the Court were aware of Defendant’s health conditions 

during the first motion for sentence modification, Defendant

would have received a lesser sentence.

On January 4, 2023, this Court denied Defendant’s first Motion to Modify 

Sentence.101 In the Order denying Defendant’s Motion, the sentencing judge

reviewed his original sentence and noted aggravating factors were the “need for 

correctional treatment” and Defendant’s “undue depreciation of offense.”102 The 

judge also noted “a mitigating factor of physical/mental impairment,”

103 specifically 

holding “[t]he Court considered [Defendant’s] physical condition prior to 

sentencing. The Court noted his ‘physical/mental impairment’ as a mitigating factor 

when arriving at the sentence.”104 

And, before concluding the October 14, 2022 sentence did “not need to be 

modified or revisited,” the judge considered Defendant’s arguments and made 

“inquiries as to [Defendant’s medical] treatment at Level V.”

105 Contrary to 

Defendant’s assertion, Defendant’s medical conditions were accounted for both 

prior to sentencing and when considering Defendant’s first motion for sentence 

modification. And after that review, the judge was satisfied the original sentence

101 D.I. 64.

102 Id. at ¶ 1. 

103

 Id. 

104 D.I. 64, January 4, 2023 Order Denying Jeffrey A. King’s Motion for Home 

Confinement/Compassionate Release. 

105

 Id. at ¶ 5.
25

was appropriate. Defendant’s argument to the contrary is not supported by the 

record.

(5)This case is distinguishable from DeRoche and Horta.

Finally, Defendant argues State v. DeRoche106 and State v. Horta107 provide 

persuasive legal authority in the context of a Rule 35(b) motion to grant a sentence

modification. In DeRoche, the Defendant suffered from severe health problems --

including heart problems and high blood pressure.

108 On several occasions, 

DeRoche was denied access to necessary medication,

109 and he would sometimes 

refuse to take his medication based on a change in the appearance of the 

medication.110 At one point, DOC failed to administer DeRoche’s heart medication 

for more than one month.111 Five days after his heart medication was finally 

administered, DeRoche suffered a heart attack.

112 A treating physician later testified 

that she had more success controlling Defendant’s high blood pressure while the 

defendant was in the hospital, compared to when DeRoche was released back to 

DOC custody.

113 The physician also opined that “Defendant's elevated blood 

pressure when he was not in the hospital may be attributed to the fact that he is not 

106

 DeRoche, 2003 WL 22293654, at *5.

107

 State v. Horta, 2022 WL 1564116 (Del. Super. Apr. 13, 2022).

108 Deroche, 2003 WL 22293654, at *1.

109 Id.

110 Id.

111 Id.

112 Id.

113 Id.
26

receiving all of his medications in a timely and orderly fashion.”114 Under these 

specific circumstances, this Court found that DeRoche’s history of severe medical 

issues and inadequate medical care as evidenced by the failure to provide DeRoche 

heart medication for more than one month and his subsequent heart attack 

demonstrated the DOC had in fact failed to provide him with adequate medical care 

under 11 Del. C. § 6536, which constituted extraordinary circumstances warranting 

a partial reduction of sentence.115

Defendant also relies upon State v. Horta as persuasive authority to grant a 

modification of sentence. In Horta, the modification of sentence request was filed 

by DOC pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 4217.116 The Court also concluded the Defendant

was suffering from a “serious medical illness” warranting a sentence modification 

because: (1) Horta had terminal brain cancer, and was receiving chemotherapy; (2)

Horta had developed seizures, headaches, and worsened vision as a consequence of 

the brain cancer and (3) he had been frequently housed in the infirmary, and had 

been noted as a “high risk for falls and injuries” by his treating surgeon.

117

 

Both DeRoche and Horta are distinguishable from the record before this 

Court. When contrasting Defendant’s claims to the defendant in DeRoche, 

114 Id.

115

 Id.

116 Horta, 2022 WL 1564116 *1.

117 Id. at *2.
27

Defendant has not demonstrated an outright failure by DOC to administer 

Defendant’s medications for an extended period of time, and there is no identified 

harm that has come from Defendant’s missed medications. Moreover, the DOC has 

instituted corrective actions which has all but eliminated prescription medication 

administration issues. Under these circumstances, Defendant has failed to 

demonstrate “extraordinary circumstances” for this Court to reconsider his 

sentence.

118

Horta is also distinguishable. First, Horta involved a motion for sentence 

modification filed by the DOC on behalf of the Defendant. And Horta was receiving 

chemotherapy while suffering from terminal brain cancer, which caused seizures. 

Defendant’s treatment is for the purpose of managing common medical conditions 

such as asthma, COPD, tremors, and degenerative disc disease. These conditions 

are not terminal medical conditions. Second, the record before this Court does not 

indicate Defendant is so seriously ill that he has been frequently housed in the 

infirmary for ongoing medical care. Third, Horta’s “high risk for falls and injuries” 

due to advancing brain cancer differs greatly in seriousness and degree from the 

“high risk of hospitalization and death” assertion made by Dr. Satriale if Defendant

does not take his medications as prescribed. 

118

 See also State v. Comrie, 2017 WL 1403324, at *2 (DOC’s failure to provide Defendant one 

dose of AIDS medication monthly was insufficient to constitute “extraordinary circumstances.”) 
28

Defendant has not made a showing of any specific medical condition which 

has resulted from or been exacerbated by DOC’s medical treatment in HRYCI. He 

is receiving appropriate and timely medication from DOC staff, and is not, in any 

meaningful way, following medical advice to try and better his circumstances. As 

such, he has failed to demonstrate “extraordinary circumstances” which warrant a 

modification of sentence. 

VI. CONCLUSION

As this is Defendant’s second Motion for Modification of Sentence, it is 

procedurally barred as repetitive. It is also procedurally barred as Defendant has 

filed an untimely motion and has failed to establish “extraordinary circumstances” 

which warrant reconsideration of the original sentence imposed. 

THEREFORE, I RECOMMEND that Jeffrey A. King’s Motion for 

Modification of Sentence be DENIED.

/s/ Martin B. O’Connor

COMMISSIONER

Cc: Prothonotary

Annemarie Puit, Deputy Attorney General

Erika Flaschner, Deputy Attorney General

Zachary George, Esquire, Counsel for Defendant