Court Opinion

ID: 9393889
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-11 16:03:14.003281+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:55.960090
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

 STATE OF DELAWARE,                        )
                                           )
                                           )
           v.                              ) I.D. No. 1408017362
                                           )
                                           )
 OBEDIAH YORK-JAMES,                       )
                                           )
                     Defendant.            )

                                       ORDER

                             Submitted: March 14, 2023
                              Decided: May 10, 2023

      AND NOW TO WIT, this 10th day of May 2023, upon consideration of

Defendant Obediah York-James (“Defendant”)’s Motion for Modification of

Sentence Due to Serious Medical Condition, the sentence imposed upon Defendant,

and the record in this case, it appears to the Court that:

      1.        Defendant was 16 years old when he was arrested on charges of

Attempted Murder First Degree, Robbery First Degree, Conspiracy Second Degree,

and two firearm charges. Extensive negotiations yielded a plea agreement. On April

22, 2015, Defendant pled guilty to one count of the Lesser Included Offense of the

murder charge to Assault First Degree, one count of Robbery First Degree, and two

                                           1
counts of Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony (PFDCF).1

Defendant was immediately sentenced—upon a joint recommendation by both the

State and him—to nineteen years, with eleven to be served as a minimum mandatory

period of incarceration. 2

       2.     On April 27, 2020, Defendant filed his first Motion for Modification

under Rule 35(b).3 That motion was denied. 4 On February 4, 2021, Defendant filed

a Motion for Modification of Sentence for an Offense Committed as a Juvenile,5

which was summarily dismissed.6

       3.     Defendant now moves again under Rule 35, seeking that his Level V

sentence be reduced to facilitate his cancer treatments for non-Hodgkin’s

lymphoma,7 contending these medical needs amount to “extraordinary

circumstances” under Rule 35, 8 because his treatment cannot be provided by DOC.9

Defendant claims communications problems with DOC “has caused (most rapidly)

a deadly decline in his health,”10 which if not addressed will “likely have fatal

1
  D.I. 10.
2
  See D.I. 11. Defendant was sentenced as follows: (1) for the Assault First Degree charge, ten
years at Level V, suspended after two years, for eight years at Level IV, suspended after six
months, for eighteen months at Level III; (2) for the Robbery First Degree charge, three years at
Level V; and (3) for the two counts of PFDCF, three years at Level V as to each charge. D.I. 11.
3
  D.I. 21.
4
  D.I. 23.
5
  D.I. 26.
6
  D.I. 30.
7
  D.I. 35.
8
  Id.
9
  Id. ¶ 14.
10
   Id. ¶ 15.
                                               2
consequences, [that] leaves him no other option than to present [here].” 11

        4.     The Court asked the State to respond. On April 21, 2023, the State

confirmed it had consulted with Dr. Awele Maduka-Ezeh, Medical Director and

Healthcare Epidemiologist with DOC, who acknowledges that Defendant’s

oncological treatment is not available locally, and that incarceration serves as a

hindrance to receiving this therapy. 12 Accordingly, the State accepted and adopted

Dr. Maduka-Ezeh’s opinion that release from prison may benefit Defendant to allow

him to access medical care.13 The State further submitted a request that should this

Court grant relief, supervision protocols with DOC be established prior to

Defendant’s release. 14

        5.     The Court is sympathetic to Defendant’s medical condition and his

request for relief. The Court also appreciates the State’s response to consider release

through Rule 35. Defendant, however, is still serving the minimum mandatory

period of his sentence. And although the Court has wide discretion to reduce a

sentence upon a timely Rule 35(b) application, which this is not, the Court has no

authority to reduce or suspend the mandatory portion of any substantive minimum

11
   Id. ¶ 16.
12
   D.I. 37.
13
   Id.
14
   Id.
                                          3
sentence.15 Thus, under Rule 35, the relief is not available.

       6.      Not only does the Court lack the authority, Defendant remains time

barred under Rule 35(b), where his motion is made more than ninety days after the

sentence was imposed. 16 Even if this Court could consider the motion, to overcome

the time bar, Defendant must show that “extraordinary circumstances”17 forgive the

tardiness of his Motion. 18 These circumstances do not constitute extraordinary

circumstances under Rule 35.

       7.      Lastly, “[t]he court will not consider repetitive requests for reduction of

sentence.”19 A motion is considered repetitive when it “is preceded by an earlier

Rule 35(b) motion, even if the subsequent motion raises new arguments.” 20 The bar

is absolute and flatly “prohibits repetitive requests for reduction of sentence.”21

15
   State v. Sturgis, 947 A.2d 1087, 1092 (Del. 2008) (“Superior Court Rule of Criminal Procedure
35(b) provides no authority for a reduction or suspension of the mandatory portion of a substantive
statutory minimum sentence.”) (emphasis in original).
16
   Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b).
17
    The Delaware Supreme Court has defined “extraordinary circumstances” as circumstances
which: “‘specifically justify the delay;’ are ‘entirely beyond a petitioner’s control;’ and ‘have
prevented the applicant from seeking the remedy on a timely basis.’” State v. Diaz, 113 A.3d
1081, 2015 WL 1741768, at *2 (Del. 2015) (Table) (quoting State v. Lewis, 797 A.2d 1198, 1203,
1205 (Del. 2002) (Steele, C.J., dissenting)).
18
   See Colon v. State, 900 A.2d 635, 638 (Del. 2006) (citations omitted).
19
   Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b) (emphasis added).
20
   State v. Culp, 152 A.3d 141, 144 (Del. 2016).
21
   Thomas v. State, 812 A.2d 900, 2002 WL 31681804, at *1 (Del. 2002) (Table). See also Jenkins
v. State, 954 A.2d 910, 2008 WL 2721536, at *1 (Del. 2008) (Table) (affirming the Superior
Court’s denial of defendant’s Rule 35(b) motion for modification where Rule 35(b) “prohibits the
filing of repetitive sentence reduction motions.”); Morrison v. State, 846 A.2d 238, 2004 WL
716773, at *2 (Del. 2004) (Table) (finding that the defendant’s Rule 35(b) motion for modification
“was repetitive, which also precluded its consideration by the Superior Court.”).
                                                4
Where Defendant has previously submitted a Motion for Modification, 22 this motion

is also barred as repetitive.

       8.     Defendant must seek relief under 11 Del. C. § 4217.23 Since the State,

through the assigned DAG, accepts and adopts the recommendations from DOC’s

medical personnel as to Defendant’s medical treatment needs, this Court

communicated directly with counsel for DOC on May 9, 2023, to determine if DOC

intended to present an application under 11 Del. C. § 4217. Counsel for DOC

confirmed via email that DOC began the process under § 4217 that same day. 24

       9.     No additional information has been provided to the Court that permits

the Court to reduce this sentence. The matter has been referred to DOC for follow-

up.

       IT IS SO ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Modification of Sentence

is SUMMARILY DISMISSED.

                                                           /s/ Vivian L. Medinilla
                                                           Vivian L. Medinilla
                                                           Judge
oc:    Prothonotary
cc:    Defendant
       Department of Justice
       Investigative Services

22
   D.I. 21.
23
   11 Del. C. § 4217 (providing that “[t]he Court may modify the sentence solely on the basis of
an application filed by the Department of Correction for good cause. . . . Good cause under this
section shall include . . . serious medical illness or infirmity of the offender. . . .”).
24
   E-mail from Gregory E. Smith, counsel for DOC, to The Honorable Vivian L. Medinilla (May
9, 2023, 03:24 p.m. EDT).
                                               5