Court Opinion

ID: 9407403
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-06 20:05:35.721502+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:37.281653
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE                             )
                                              )
          v.                                  )
                                              ) I.D. No. 1306002171
TIMOTHY MARTIN,                               )
                                              )
                       Defendant.             )

                                        ORDER

                                 Submitted: May 9, 2023
                                  Decided: July 6, 2023

          AND NOW TO WIT, this 6th day of July 2023, upon consideration of

Timothy Martin (“Defendant”)’s fourth Motion for Modification/Reduction of

Sentence under Rule 35, the sentence imposed upon Defendant, and the record

in this case, it appears to the court that:

          1.      On March 13, 2014, Defendant pled guilty to three counts of Burglary

Second Degree, one count of Assault Second Degree, and one count of Possession

of a Firearm by a Person Prohibited (“PFBPP”). 1 On July 18, 2014, Defendant was

sentenced to: (1) for Burglary Second Degree, a total of nine years of unsuspended

Level V supervision, followed by transitioning levels of probation; (2) for Assault

Second Degree, five years at Level V, suspended for two years at Level III; and (3)

for PFBPP, eight years at Level V Key Program, suspended after five years for three

1
    D.I. 24.
years at Level IV Crest, suspended after nine months for two years at Level III

TASC. 2 On October 27, 2015, the Court issued a modified sentencing order

removing TASC from Defendant’s sentence. 3

       2.       Defendant has previously filed three Motions to Modify/Reduce his

Sentence under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b), 4 which were all denied by this

Court.5

       3.       In this fourth Motion, Defendant, now represented by counsel, asks

the Court to modify his sentence to twelve years upon completion of one of the above

programs.6 In support, Defendant states that he has housing and employment

prepared once released from prison. 7

       4.       Under Rule 35(b), the Court may reduce the “term or conditions

of partial confinement or probation, at any time.” 8 But, “[t]he court will not

consider repetitive requests for reduction of sentence.” 9         A motion is

considered repetitive when it “is preceded by an earlier Rule 35(b) motion,

even if the subsequent motion raises new arguments.” 10 The repetitive motion

2
  D.I. 29.
3
  D.I. 50.
4
  D.I. 31; D.I. 36; D.I. 60.
5
  D.I. 34; D.I. 38; D.I. 61.
6
  D.I. 63.
7
  Id.
8
  Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b).
9
  Id.
10
   State v. Culp, 152 A.3d 141, 144 (Del. 2016).
                                                   2
bar applies to the request for reduction or modification of a term of partial

confinement or probation. 11 Rule 35 does not allow the Court to use its

discretion to ignore this bar. 12         Thus, Defendant’s request to reduce his

sentence to twelve years upon completion of the programs is barred as

repetitive.

       5.       Defendant further asks the Court to modify his sentence to substitute

the Key program with the Road to Recovery program and the Crest program with

the Anger Management for Substance Abuse and Mental Health program, as the

Key and the Crest programs are no longer offered by DOC. 13 Defendant’s

Request to modify the sentencing order is granted, where DOC no longer

provides the Key or the Crest program, each program should be replaced with

the Road to Recovery program and the Anger Management for Substance

Abuse and Mental Health program, respectively.

       IT IS SO ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Sentence

Modification/Reduction is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part.

                                                            /s/Vivian L. Medinilla
                                                            Vivian L. Medinilla
                                                            Judge

11
   See Teat v. State, 31 A.3d 77, 2011 WL 4839042, at *1 (Del. 2011) (Table).
12
   Culp, 152 A.3d at 145 (reversing the Superior Court's decision to grant the defendant's motion
for modification where the motion was repetitive and untimely).
13
   D.I. 63.
                                                3
oc:   Prothonotary
cc:   Defendant
      Department of Justice
      Investigative Services

                               4