IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE, ) )
v. ) ID No. 2105015323 ) LENNON DAVIS, ) ) Defendant. )
Date Submitted: August 24, 2023 Date Decided: October 2 6 , 2023

ORDER Upon consideration of Defendant Lennon Davis’ (“Davis”) “ Motion for
Modification / Reduction of Sentence” (“Motion”), 1 the State’s response, 2 Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b) , 3 statutory and decisional law, and the record in this case,
IT APPEARS THAT: (1) On March 30, 2022 , Davis pled guilty to Resisting Arrest and Non

Compliance with Bond Conditions for domestic violence related charges against
Jackson

. 4 At sentencing, Davis was sentenced effective July 22, 2021, to 2 year s at
Level V , suspended after 1 year Level 5, for 18 months Level III probation for

1 D.I. 17

. The Court understands this to be a Motion for Modification of Partial Confinement or Probation

. 2 D.I. 19

. 3 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b). 4 D.I. 6.2

Resisting Arrest ; and 1 year Level V suspended for 18 months at Level 3 probation
for Non

- Compliance with Bond Conditions

. 5 (2) On June 8, 2022 , Davis filed a Motion for Sentence Modificat ion 6
which the Court denied on September 20, 2022. 7 (3) On March 16, 2023, a V iolation of P robation (“VOP”) hearing was
held. 8 At the VOP hearing, Davis was found in violation of the terms of his probation
and sentenced for Resisting Arrest VOP (VN21

- 08

- 1163

- 01) to 1 year at Level V with credit for 25 days previously served, suspended for 1 year Level III substance abuse treatment program, suspended after successful completion of substance abuse treatment program, suspended for 1 year Level III GPS; and for the Non

- Compliance
with Bond Conditions VOP (VN21

- 08

- 1166

- 01) to 1 year Level V suspended for 1 year Level III probation GPS. All prior terms and conditions were reimposed

. 9 (4) O n June 27, 2023 , Davis filed the instant M otion asking the Court to
remove the GPS monitoring requirement of his probation, transfer his probation to Sussex County, and modify the “no contact” order with Jackson to a “no unlawful
contact” order. 10

5 D.I. 12. 6 D.I. 8. 7 D.I. 9

. 8 D.I. 12. 9 Id

. 10 D.I. 17.3

(5) Rule 35(b) governs moti ons for modification or reduction of sentence. 11 “A motion for modification of partial confinement or probation is not subject to the ninety

- day limitation applicable to a motion for reduction of imprisonment.” 12
Pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 4333, any probati on or suspension of sentence may be
terminated at the Court’s discretion. 13 (6) The Court’s authority to grant relief under Rule 35(b) is discretionary. 14 Rule 35(b) does not provide specific considerations the Court must consider, rather
“the Court exercis es broad discretion in determining whether a situation or set of
individual factors can be viewed.” 15 (7) In support of his Motion, Davis cites his completion of his substance abuse and mental health counseling, 16 and an affidavit from the victim in his case stating she does not oppose the motion

. 17 Further , i n support of his request to remove the GPS anklet, he states that it takes time to char ge the device, he cannot take baths, the device beeps at low battery, employers deem device holders undesirable, and the
device causes small lacerations to his ankle. 18

11 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b). 12 State v. Baily , 2017 WL 8787504 at *1 (Del. Super. Ct. Oct. 3, 2017); State v. Redden , 111 A.3d 602, 609 (Del. Super. Ct. 2015). 13 Id

. 14 Id

. 15 State v. Redden , 111 A.3d 602, 609 (2015). 16 D.I. 17. 17 Id

. 18 Id

.4

(8) The GPS monitoring requirement was imposed after the Court held a VOP hearing and foun d Davis had violated the terms of his probation. The sentence is appropriate for all the reasons stated at the VOP hearing. No information has been provided to the court that would warrant modification. The Court commends Davis on his completion of the sub stance abuse and mental health program but will not
remove the GPS requirement

. (9) Davis fails to provide any basis for his request to transfer his probation to Sussex County other than his claim that he has thus far complied with his No
Contact Order with t he victim. 19 The Court will not consider this request. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Lennon Davis’
Motion for Sentence Modification is DENIED

.

/s/ Jan R. Jurden Jan R . Jurden , President Judge

cc: Original to Prothonotary Christina M. Davis, DAG Lennon Davis (SBI # 516706 )

19 D.I. 17.