IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE ) ) I.D. No: 2101010759
v. ) ) JAVON HOXTER , ) Defendant. )

Submitted: August 15 , 2022 Decided: November 2, 2022

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION

TO REDUCE SENTENCE

AND NOW, this 2 nd day of November , 2022, upon careful consideration of
Javon Hoxter ’s (“ Hoxter ”) Motion to Reduce Sentence pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 35( b ), the sentence imposed upon Hoxter , and the record in this case, it appears to the Court that:
1. On March 9, 2021, a Grand Jury indicted Hoxter for B urglary F irst
D egree, R ape T hird D egree, R ape S econd D egree, U nlawful S exual C ontact F irst
D egree, M alicious I nterference with E mergency C ommunications, A ssault T hird
D egree, and M isdemeanor T heft. To spare Hoxter further embarrassment, I will not
recite the facts of the case , but they are shocking and violent.2

2. Hoxte r pleaded guilty to two offenses on February 23, 2022 : R ape in
the T hird D egree and U nlawful S exual C ontact in the F irst D egree. The State entered

a nolle prosequi on the remaining charges

. The parties both requested that sentencing
be deferred for a presentence investigation. Hoxter faced a minimum sentence of two years and a maximum of thirty

- three years of incarceration. T he State agree d to cap its recommendation at eight years.
3. Sentencing took place on May 13, 20 22

. I heard from Hoxter’s attorney, Hoxter’s mother, Hoxter, and the prosecutor. The victim was present in court but did not wish to speak. Instead, the prosecutor read a statement from her. I sentenced
Hoxter as follows: ( 1 ) f

or R ape in the T hird D egree, to twenty

- five years supervision
Level V , suspended after eight years, for five years supervision Level III and (2) f or
U nlawful S exual C ontact in the F irst D egree, to eight years supervision Level V , suspended for five years supervision Level III

. 4. On August 15 , 2022, Hoxter filed this pending Motion to Reduce
Sentence

. Because it is his first motion and was filed within ninety days of the imposition of his sentence, it is not procedurally barred and is timely.
5. In his motion, H oxter argues that : (1) the Delaware Sentencing Accountability Commission (“SENTAC”) guidelines recommend two to five y ears for R ape in the T hird D egree ; and (2) the SENTAC guidelines recommend zero to

two years for U nlawful S exual C ontact in the F irst D egree. H oxter urges the c ourt3

to reduce his sentence to the recommended range because of his lack of criminal history and because the crimes were not “terribly horrific.” He asks that the eight

year sentence be reduced to five years.
6. Pursuant to Superior Court Cri minal Rule 35( b ) , the c ourt may reduce a sentence of imprisonment on a mot ion made within 90 days after the sentence is imposed. 1 T he R ule allows for relief if the sentence imposed was “based on preconceived bias without consideration of the nature of the offense or character of
the defendant.” 2 If the sentencing judge relies upon impermissible factors when establishing a sentence or the imposition exhibits a close

- minded decision, review and reduction may be appropriate

. 3 A judge may exceed the SENTA C guidelines,
but must explain the reasons for doing so. 4
7. At sentencing, I recognized Hoxter’s lack of criminal history, his good employment history, the nature of his employment (working with special needs children), the significant support he receives from family and friends, the fact that he is a good father, and his demonstrated remorse and acceptance of responsibility.

1 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b). 2 See Dailey v. State , 2004 WL 439855 , * 2 (Del. 2004) (citation omitted) (holding that the Superior Court judge’s sentence was based upon relevant factors, such as the nature of the crime and the defendant’s criminal history). 3 Id. at * 1

- 2; S ee also Ellerbe v. State , 2000 WL 949625 , * 1 (Del. 2000) , Vessels v. State , 2009 WL 4847619, *1 (Del. 2009) (highlighting where the sentence imposed exceeded the SENTAC guidelines but was still within the statutory limits, there was no legal or constitutional right to appeal)

. 4 Benge v. State , 2004 WL 2743431, at *2 (Del. 2004).4

I noted that many of the mitigating factors in the case were likely considered by the State during the plea negotiations because Hoxt er faced a significant amount of
minimum

- mandatory time at Level V if he were convicted of all charged offenses and because the State agreed to cap its recommendation.
8. I found, however, that the aggravating factors outweighed the mitigating factors. I note d the severe impact of the crimes on the victim and the
violen t nature of the crimes. I also articulated the following aggravating factors: need for correctional treatment, undue depreciation of the offense, the fact the crime happened in the victim’s home in the middle of the night, and the fact that the victim’s young child was present.
9. I gave a great deal of thought to Hoxter’s sentence, both after a review of the presentence investigation and from what was said at sentencing. From everything I read and heard, these criminal acts were uncharacteristic of Hoxter

. However, I could not overlook the violent and assaultive nature of the crimes and the lasting impact of Hoxter’s acts on the victim. Hoxter faced very serious charges with significant minimum sent ences, and he received a favorable plea agreement.
He knew the State’s recommendation when he took the plea, and that
recommendation was well below the possible maximum sentence. I did not exceed
the State’s recommendation.5

10. T he sentence imposed upon Hoxte r is appropriate for all the reasons set
forth above. Therefore, Hoxter’s Motion to Reduce Sentence is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/ s/ Robert H. Robinson, Jr. Robert H. Robinson, Jr. , Judge pc: Prothonotary