Court Opinion

ID: 9915614
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-05 22:02:14.119899+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:17:09.343048
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE,                             )
                                               )
                                               )
                                               )
             v.                                ) ID No. 1802011394 A & B
                                               )
JAWONE SELBY,                                  )
                                               )
                                               )
                    Defendant.                 )
                                               )

                            Date Submitted: November 7, 2023
                             Date Decided: January 5, 2024

                                         ORDER

       Upon consideration of Defendant Jawone Selby’s (“Selby”) Letter Motion for

Sentence Modification (“Motion”),1 Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b), statutory

and decisional law, and the record in this case, IT APPEARS THAT:

       (1)        On November 13, 2018, Selby pled guilty to Possession of a Firearm

During the Commission of a Felony (“PFDCF”) (IN18-04-1016), and Possession of

a Firearm or Ammunition by a Person Prohibited (“PFABPP”) (IN18-04-1022).2

       (2)        On March 22, 2019, Selby was sentenced as follows: for PFDCF, 5

years at Level V; and for PFABPP, 11 years at Level V suspended after 4 years, for

1
  D.I. 48A, D.I. 14B.
2
  D.I. 41A, D.I. 9B. On July 31, 2018, the Court granted a motion to sever the PFABPP charge
from the PFDCF, creating the B case. D.I. 4B. This severance was rendered moot by Selby’s
plea. D.I. 41A, D.I.9B.
7 years Level IV DOC Discretion suspended after 6 months, for 1 year Level III.3

       (3)     On November 7, 2023, Selby filed the instant Motion requesting the

Court either grant him early release, or “[l]evel 4 for the remain[der] of my time.”4

The grounds for his request are as follows: he has maintained consistent employment

for the past 2 years; he garnered six points in the Department of Correction

classification system which allowed him to move to minimum building housing

status; he was approved for an honor visit with his family; and he has been enrolled

in school for approximately 6 years.5

       (4)     Rule 35(b) governs motions for modification or reduction of sentence.6

“Under Rule 35(b), a motion for sentence modification must be filed within ninety

days of sentencing, absent a showing of ‘extraordinary circumstances.’”7 Rule 35(b)

also mandates that “[t]he [C]ourt will not consider repetitive requests for reduction

of sentence.”8

       (5)     Selby’s Motion is procedurally barred as untimely. Selby filed the

3
  D.I. 47A, D.I. 13B. Selby is ordered to pay $7.00 in restitution. D.I. 47A, D.I. 13B.
4
  D.I. 48A, D.I. 14B.
5
  D.I. 48A, D.I. 14B.
6
  Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b).
7
  Croll v. State, 2020 WL 1909193, at *1 (Del. Apr. 17, 2020) (TABLE) (affirming the Superior
Court’s denial of a motion for modification of sentence where the motion was repetitive and filed
beyond the 90-day limit); see Hewett v. State, 2014 WL 5020251, at *1 (Del. Oct. 7, 2014) (“When
[] a motion for reduction of sentence is filed within ninety days of sentencing, the Superior Court
has broad discretion to decide whether to alter its judgment.”).
8
  Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b) (emphasis added).

                                                2
instant Motion on November 7, 2023,9 several years past the ninety-day window.10

        (6)   The Court may only consider an untimely Rule 35(b) motion in two

circumstances: when a movant demonstrates “extraordinary circumstances” or when

the motion is filed pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 4217.11 Selby has not identified any

“extraordinary circumstances”12 nor was his Motion filed pursuant to 11 Del. C. §

4217.

        (7)   Selby’s participation in educational and rehabilitative programs, while

commendable, does not constitute an “extraordinary circumstance.” As such, the

Court finds the sentence remains appropriate for all the reasons stated at the time of

sentencing.

        NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Selby’s Letter

Motion for Sentence Modification is DENIED.

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

Original to Prothonotary
cc: John S. Taylor, DAG
      Jawone Selby (SBI # 00812684)
9
  D.I. 48A, D.I. 14B.
10
   The Court sentenced Selby on March 22, 2019. D.I. 47A, D.I. 13B.
11
   Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b).
12
   See State v. Remedio, 108 A.3d 326, 332 (Del. Super. 2014) (explaining that extraordinary
circumstances must specifically justify the delay, be beyond the movant’s control, and be the
reason the movant was prevented from timely filing).

                                             3