Court Opinion

ID: 9909263
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-12 20:02:44.035443+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:48:23.455757
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

    STATE OF DELAWARE,                           )
                                                 )
        v.                                       )
                                                 ) I.D. # 0406005054
    MELVIN L. WILLIAMS,                          )
                                                 )
              Defendant.                         )

                           Submitted: November 20, 2023
                            Decided: December 12, 2023

                   ORDER DENYING MELVIN WILLIAMS’
                   MOTION FOR SENTENCE REDUCTION

       The Court having considered Melvin Williams’ (“Williams”) Motion for

Sentence Reduction1 (the “Motion”), for the following reasons, the Motion is

DENIED.

       1.    In July 2006, a jury found Williams guilty on three counts.             On

September 15, 2006, Williams was sentenced as follows: Murder in the First-Degree,

Level V for the rest of his natural life; Possession of a Firearm During the

Commission of a Felony (“PFDCF”), 15 years at Level V; and, Possession of a

Deadly Weapon By a Person Prohibited (“PDWBPP”) 8 years at Level V, suspended

after 3 years for 18 months at Level III.2 The sentences were effective June 4, 2004.3

1
  D.I. 128.
2
  The first three years of the PFDCF and PDWBPP sentences are mandatory. See 11 Del. C. §
1447(a); 11 Del. C. § 1448.
3
  D.I. 76.

                                           1
      2.     Williams appealed his convictions, which were affirmed in 2007.4

      3.     On March 25, 2008, with the assistance of counsel, Williams filed a

Rule 61 Motion for Postconviction Relief,5 which was denied on May 29, 2009.6

The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the denial on December 2, 2009.7

      4.     Williams, pro se, filed a second Motion for Postconviction Relief and

a Motion to Appoint Counsel on January 15, 2014.8 The second motion was

summarily dismissed and the motion to appoint counsel was denied on February 4,

2014.9 The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the ruling on May 12, 2014.10

      5.     On August 15, 2019, Williams filed another pro se Motion for

Postconviction Relief and another Motion to Appoint Counsel.11 In this third motion

for postconviction relief, Williams asserted four grounds for relief: (1) ineffective

assistance of counsel; (2) newly discovered evidence in that another person “wrote

the courts that he was the person who committed the murder”; (3) there was DNA

evidence found at the scene that did not belong to Williams; and (4) he testified for

4
  D.I. 84.
5
  D.I. 87.
6
  State v. Williams, 2009 WL 6529205 (Del. Super. May 28, 2009).
7
  Williams v. State, 2009 WL 4351700, 985 A.2d 391 (TABLE) (Del. Dec. 2, 2009).
8
  D.I. 102, 103.
9
  State v. Williams, 2014 WL 1302998 (Del. Super. Feb. 4, 2014).
10
   Williams v. State, 2014 WL 1912367, 91 A.3d 563 (TABLE) (Del. May 12, 2014).
11
   D.I. 116, 117.

                                            2
the State in connection with the 2017 murder/riot at the state prison, helping to secure

two convictions.12

       6.      By Report and Recommendation dated November 8, 2019, the

Commissioner recommended summary dismissal of the postconviction motion and

denial of the motion to appoint counsel.13 Williams did not object to the Report and

Recommendation and on December 17, 2019, it was Adopted and the motions were

denied.14

       7.      On November 20, 2023, Williams filed the Motion seeking a reduction

in his sentence to the 30-35 years at Level V, which he asserts was previously offered

to him in plea deal.15 He also wants to be eligible to accumulate “good time”, which

he is currently not eligible for under his sentence for murder.16 The grounds for the

Motion are that he: (1) was a witness in two trials in connection with the 2017

murder/riot at the state prison; (2) has been incarcerated for nearly 20 years; (3) has

completed all the programs for which he is eligible; and (4) has attained a GED and

recently graduated from other programs, such as keyboarding in a computer class

and financial literacy.17      Williams attached several certificates to the Motion,

12
   D.I. 116.
13
   State v. Williams, 2019 WL 5887374 (Del. Super. Nov. 8, 2019).
14
   D.I. 124.
15
   D.I. 128.
16
    11 Del. C. § 4209(a) (a person convicted of first-degree murder “shall be punished [] by
imprisonment for the remainder of the person’s natural life without benefit of probation or parole
or any other reduction….”)
17
   Id.

                                                3
reflecting the various programs he has completed.

       8.     Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a) provides that the Court “may

correct an illegal sentence at any time and may correct a sentence imposed in an

illegal manner within the time provided herein for the reduction of sentence.” The

Delaware Supreme Court has stated that:

       A sentence is illegal if it exceeds statutory limits, violates double
       jeopardy, is ambiguous with respect to the time and manner in which it
       is to be served, is internally contradictory, omits a term required to be
       imposed by statute, is uncertain as to its substance, or is a sentence that
       the judgment of conviction did not authorize.18

       9.     Criminal Rule 35(b) provides that the Court “may reduce a sentence of

imprisonment on a motion made within 90 days after the sentence is imposed.” The

Court will consider a Rule 35(b) motion after the 90-day period “only in

extraordinary circumstances” or when the DOC has filed an application pursuant to

11 Del. C. § 4217.

       10.    A petitioner bears a heavy burden to show “extraordinary

circumstances,” which are circumstances that “‘specifically justify the delay’, are

‘entirely beyond a petitioner’s control’; and ‘have prevented the [petitioner] from

seeking the remedy on a timely basis.’”19 It is well-settled that “exemplary conduct

18
  Flonnory v. State, 2017 WL 3634216, 170 A.3d 777 (TABLE) (Del. Aug. 23, 2017).
19
  State v. Redden, 111 A.3d 602, 607 (Del. Super. 2015) (citations omitted) (emphasis in
original).

                                               4
and/or successful rehabilitation while imprisoned do not qualify as ‘extraordinary

circumstances’” under Rule 35.20

       11.    Williams does not specify whether his Motion is under Rule 35(a) or

35(b). He does not assert that his sentence was illegal. He also does not provide

any ground to find that the sentence was illegal or was imposed in an illegal manner.

Therefore, the Court will consider the Motion under Rule 35(b).

       12.    Williams’ Motion is beyond 90-days after his sentencing. Therefore,

for the Court to reach the merits of his motion, Williams must establish

“extraordinary circumstances.” Here, he cites to the work he has been doing while

incarcerated to show his rehabilitative efforts and that he is continuing to work to

serve others while incarcerated. “While participation in rehabilitation programs is

commendable, it is well-settled that such participation, in and of itself, is insufficient

to merit substantive review of an untimely motion for sentence reduction” under

Rule 35(b).21     This is because “rehabilitative efforts are ‘entirely [within] a

petitioner’s control.’”22      Additionally, modification of a sentence based on

“rehabilitation of the offender” is separately provided for in Section 4217.23

20
   State v. Liket, 2002 WL 31133101, *2 (Del. Super. Sept. 25, 2002); State v. Lindsey, 2020 WL
4038015, n.23 (Del. Super. July 17, 2020) (collecting cases).
21
   Redden, 111 A.3d at 607-08.
22
   Id. quoting State v. Lewis, 797 A.2d 1198, 1205 (Del. 2002).
23
   Redden, 111 A.3d at 608.

                                              5
      13.    Williams’ other two grounds – providing testimony in other criminal

cases and the length of time he has been incarcerated – also do not qualify as

extraordinary circumstances, nor does he assert that they do.

      14.    Even if the Court reached the merits of Williams’ Motion, the Court is

without any ability to modify his sentence as he requests. Williams was convicted

of First-Degree Murder, which carries a mandatory sentence of incarceration for the

rest of his natural life.24 Accordingly, “[a]bsent an appropriate application from the

Department of Correction under Section 4217, the Superior Court cannot reduce a

minimum mandatory sentence under Rule 35(b).”25

      15.    The Court commends Williams for the steps he is taking and the

certifications he has earned. However, because the Motion is untimely, fails to

establish extraordinary circumstances, and the Court is without authority to reduce

or modify his life sentence, the Motion is DENIED.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED.

                                                /s/Kathleen M. Miller
                                                Judge Kathleen M. Miller

Original to Prothonotary

cc:   Renee Hrivnak, DAG
      Melvin Williams, SBI# 00282948

24
  11 Del. C. § 4209(a).
25
  Wisher v. State, 2022 WL 17843052, 288 A.3d 1137 (TABLE) (Del. Dec. 21, 2022); see also
State v. Stokes, 2019 WL 6329066 *2 (Del. Super. Nov. 26, 2019) (“the Superior Court had no
discretion in imposing the mandatory life sentence” for first degree murder).

                                            6