Court Opinion

ID: 9395309
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-17 18:03:13.137733+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:07.158598
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE,                         )
                                           )
        v.                                 ) ID No. 1605013744
                                           )
SCOTT PRYOR,                               )
    Defendant.                             )

                                       ORDER

        On this 17th day of May, 2023, upon consideration of Defendant, Scott

Pryor’s (“Defendant”) pro se Motion for Sentence Modification (the “Motion”),1 the

sentence imposed upon Defendant, and the record in this case, it appears to the Court

that:

        1.   Defendant pled guilty to the charges of Burglary Second Degree,

Attempted Burglary Second Degree and Resisting Arrest on August 15, 2016.2 On

February 10, 2017, Defendant was sentenced to, for Burglary Second Degree, eight

(8) years at Level V suspended after four (4) years (inpatient drug treatment) for four

(4) years at Level IV CREST, suspended after twelve (12) months for two (2) years

at Level III CREST Aftercare, followed by two (2) years at Level II supervision; for

Attempted Burglary Second Degree (IN16-06-0796), eight (8) years at Level V

suspended after three (3) years or two (2) years Level III, CREST Aftercare,

concurrent probation and to Resisting Arrest (IN16-06-097), one (1) year Level V

1
    State v. Scott Pryor, Crim. ID No. 1605013774, D.I. 38.
2
    D.I. 18.
suspended after 30 days with no probation to follow.3 Defendant’s sentence was

modified on April 1, 2021, at Defendant’s request, to remove the CREST portion of

Defendant’s Level IV sentence and replace it with a “DOC Discretion” placement.4

      2. On May 1, 2023, Defendant filed a Motion for Modification of his

sentence, as he is requesting that his Level IV sentence, which is currently leaves

placement at “DOC Discretion” be modified to allow him to reside at Hudson

Behavioral Health. Defendant asserts that he is homeless, has been in contact with

Hudson Behavioral Health for placement and would be better placed in a “more

structured environment.”5

      3. Defendant had previously submitted multiple motions for reduction of

sentence on January 8, 2020, the first of which was on April 28, 2017.6 Defendant

was successful and a modified sentence was issued on March 13, 2018.7 Then again

on November 15, 2018, Defendant moved the Court for modification. 8 This was

denied on January 7, 2019.9 Yet again, on March 14, 2019, Defendant moved and

was denied modification on May 17, 2019.10           Defendant then moved for

3
  D.I. 13, 14. Defendant’s original sentence was modified on March 13, 2018, to
reflect the above corrected sentence. D.I. 17.
4
  D.I. 25.
5
  D.I. 35.
6
  D.I. 15.
7
  D.I. 17
8
  D.I. 18.
9
  D.I. 20.
10
   D.I. 21, 22.
                                        2
“Clarification of Sentence” on June 26, 2019, which was denied on September 11,

2019.11 Defendant then once again successfully moved for modification on January

27, 2021, and March 8, 2021, which modified the aforementioned Level IV portion

of his sentence from CREST to “DOC Discretion”.12 On December 20, 2021 and

September 2, 2021, Defendant filed motions for modification of his sentence, both

of which were summarily denied as repetitive.13 Most recently, on January 23, 2023,

Defendant filed yet another motion for modification of sentence which was denied

on February 10, 2023.14

      5. Pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b), “[t]he court will not

consider repetitive requests for reduction of sentence.”15 A motion is considered

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

subsequent motion raises new arguments.”16 The bar to repetitive motions has no

exception.17 The repetitive motion bar is applicable even when the request is for

11
   D.I. 23, 24.
12
   D.I. 25, 26, 47.
13
   D.I. 30, 31, 33, 34.
14
   D.I. 35, 36.
15
   Morrison v. State, 846 A.2d 238, 2004 WL 716773, at *1-2 (Del. Mar. 24, 2004)
(TABLE) (emphasis added).
16
   State v. Culp, 152 A.3d 141, 144 (Del. 2016).
17
   Thomas v. State, 812 A.2d 900, 2002 WL 31681804, at *1 (Del. Nov. 25, 2002)
(TABLE) (It is absolute and flatly “prohibits repetitive requests for reduction of
sentence.”). See Jenkins v. State, 954 A.2d 910, 2008 WL 2721536, at *1 (Del.
July 14, 2008) (TABLE) (Rule 35(b) “prohibits the filing of repetitive sentence
reduction motions.”); see also Morrison v. State, 846 A.2d 238, 2004 WL 716773,
at *2 (Del. Mar. 24, 2004) (TABLE) (defendant’s “motion was repetitive, which
                                        3
reduction or modification of probation.18       Defendant’s previous motions for

modification of sentence have all been denied.19 Therefore, this Rule 35(b) Motion

is also barred as repetitive.

      6. Defendant presents no new information in this motion that would warrant

a modification. Defendant cites a potential for a violation of program conditions due

to him encountering difficulties coordinating employment. However, that does not

rise to a level that either overcomes the procedural bar or otherwise justifies

modification.20 Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Modification of Sentence is

DENIED.

      IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                             Danielle J. Brennan
                                             Danielle J. Brennan, Judge

      Original to Prothonotary
Cc:   Scott Pryor (SBI #00569531)
      Department of Justice
      Investigative Services

also precluded its consideration by the Superior Court.”).
18
   See Teat v. State, 2011 WL 4839042, at *1 (Del. Oct. 12, 2011); see also State v.
Bennett, 2015 WL 1746239, at *2 (Del. Super. Apr. 13, 2015); see also State v.
Weidlow, 2015 WL 1142583, at *1–2 (Del. Super. Mar. 11, 2015).
19
   D.I. 31.
20
   The grievances cited by Defendant appear to be related to alleged complaints
regarding staff at the Department of Corrections (“DOC”). There are more suitable
avenues for relief available to Defendant via the DOC administrative process.
                                         4