Court Opinion

ID: 9952797
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-20 19:03:45.802626+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:44:30.161064
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE,                             )
                                               )
             v.                                )        ID No. 2302011589
                                               )
ROBERT ALLEY,                                  )
                                               )
                    Defendant.                 )

                               Date Submitted: February 19, 2024
                                Date Decided: March 18, 2024

                                           ORDER

       Upon consideration of Defendant Robert Alley’s (“Alley”) Motion for

Modification of Partial Confinement or Probation (“Motion”), 1 Superior Court

Criminal Rule 35(b),2 statutory and decisional law, and the record in this case, IT

APPEARS THAT:

       (1)        On December 20, 2023, Alley pled guilty to one count Act of

Intimidation and two counts of Non-Compliance with Bond Conditions.3 That same

day, Alley was sentenced as follows: for Act of Intimidation, 8 years at Level V with

credit time for 312 days previously served, suspended for 18 months at supervision

Level 5, for 18 months at Level III; for Non-Compliance with Bond Conditions, 5

1
  D.I. 63.
2
  Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b).
3
  D.I. 59.
years at Level V, suspended for 8 months at Level III; and for Non-Compliance with

Bond Conditions, five years at Level V, suspended for 18 months at Level III.4

       (2)     On January 24, 2024, Alley filed the instant Motion asking the Court to

modify his Level III probation to Level II and transfer his probation to the state of

Florida, suspend the requirement that he be evaluated by TASC, and suspend the

condition requiring him to complete the DVCC certified Domestic Violence Course.5

       (3)     On February 9, 2024, the State filed a response opposing the

modification, stating that Alley’s sentence is correct per the guilty plea he agreed to,

and listing several aggravating factors such as his repetitive criminal history, 30 prior

probation violations, lack of amenability, five pending trials in the Court of Common

Pleas against the same victim, and prior abuse of the victim.6 Further, the State

argues that even when incarcerated the Defendant attempted to contact the victim to

attempt to get his charges dismissed.7

       (4)     Rule 35(b) governs motions for modification or reduction of sentence.8

“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.” 9

4
  D.I. 61.
5
  D.I. 63.
6
  D.I. 65.
7
  Id.
8
  Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b).
9
  State v. Baily, 2017 WL 8787504, at *1 (Del. Super. Oct. 3, 2017); State v. Redden, 111 A.3d 602,
609 (Del. Super. 2015).
                                                2
Pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 4333, any probation or suspension of sentence may be

terminated at the Court’s discretion.10

       (5)    The Court’s authority to grant relief under Rule 35(b) is discretionary.11

Rule 35(b) does not provide specific considerations the Court must consider, rather

“the Court exercises broad discretion in determining whether a situation or set of

individual factors can be viewed.”12

       (6)    In support of his Motion, Alley argues that his sentence is beyond the

SENTAC guidelines, he pled no contest out of fear and pressure by the Attorney

General’s office, he has no previous domestic violence charges or drug-related

convictions, and that he is a Florida resident and does not plan to reside in

Delaware.13

       (7)    The Level III probation was imposed by the Court following Alley’s

guilty plea. This case resolved six domestic-related charges against the same victim

including Stalking, Aggravated Menacing, Assault Third Degree, Terroristic

Threatening, Offensive Touching, Harassment, Act of Intimidation, and Non-

Compliance charges. 14 At sentencing, the Court also took into account Alley’s

extensive criminal history including 9 prior non-violent felonies and 13 prior

10
   Id.
11
   Id.
12
   State v. Redden, 111 A.3d 602, 609 (2015).
13
   D.I. 64.
14
   D.I. 65.
                                                3
misdemeanor convictions, and in the instant case that he was arrested on six separate

occasions for domestic violence related charges in a five-month period.15

       (8)     Under Rule 11(d),

               [t]he court shall not accept a plea of guilty or nolo
               contendere without first, by addressing the defendant
               personally in open court, determine that the plea is
               voluntarily and not the result of force or threats or
               promises apart from a plea agreement. The court shall also
               inquire as to whether the defendant’s willingness to plead
               guilty or nolo contendere results from prior discussions
               between the attorney general and the defendant or the
               defendant’s attorney.16

A defendant’s statements are presumed truthful during a guilty plea colloquy.17

       (9)     During Alley’s sentencing he was questioned as to whether he

understood his plea and reviewed the Truth-In-Sentencing Guilty Plea Form

provided to him by counsel.18 On Alley’s Truth-In-Sentencing Guilty Plea Form, in

addressing the question, “Have you freely and voluntarily decided to plead guilty to

the charges listen in your written plea agreement,” Alley checked “Yes.”19 He also

answered the question, “Has your lawyer, the State, or anyone threatened or forced

you to enter into the plea?” by checking, “No.”20 Because the Court takes Alley’s

representations to the Court during a guilty plea sentencing as truthful, the Court

15
   Id.
16
   Super. Ct. Crim. R. 11(d).
17
   Somerville v. State, 703 A.2d 629, 632 (Super. Ct. 1997).
18
   D.I. 61.
19
   Id.
20
   Id.
                                                4
finds insufficient evidence to demonstrate Alley was “forced” or “threatened” into

taking the guilty plea.

      (10) No information has been provided to the Court that would warrant

modification. Therefore, the sentence is appropriate for all the reasons stated at

sentencing.

      NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Robert Alley’s

Modification of Partial Confinement or Probation is DENIED.

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

cc:   Original to Prothonotary
      Brianna Mills, DAG
      Robert Alley, Defendant

                                        5