Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. White

Superior Court of Delaware

July 23, 2018

STATE OF DELAWARE,
v.
DAHMERE WHITE, Defendant.

          Submitted: July 12, 2018

          ORDER DENYING THIRD MOTION TO MODIFY SENTENCE

          Paul R. Wallace, Judge.

         This 23rd day of June, 2018, upon consideration of the Defendant's Third Motion for Sentence Modification (D.I. 14), and the record in this matter, it appears to the Court that:

(1) Defendant Dahmere White was before the Court for sentencing after having earlier pleaded guilty to a charge of Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony ("PFDCF").[1] At his September 30, 2016 sentencing hearing, Mr. White was sentenced to serve: effective February 23, 2016, three years at Level V, followed by six months at Supervision Level IV-DOC Discretion, and then two years at Supervision Level III.[2]
(2) Mr. White filed an unsuccessful motion to try to reduce his term of imprisonment in December 20 16.[3] He then filed a second motion under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b)[4] in April 2018 requesting elimination of his Level IV term and reduction of Level III term to Level II.[5] His request was based, in part, on his claims of familial hardship, rehabilitation, educational efforts and relocation prospects.[6] That motion was denied.[7]
(3) Mr. White has now filed the present motion under Rule 35(b) requesting again that his term of Level IV supervision be eliminated and his Level III term reduced. In short, Mr. White requests that he spend no time at Level IV. This relief is appropriate, he suggests, for the same reasons he cited three months ago: (1) his rehabilitative efforts; (2) his family's hardship; (3) his employment/relocation prospects; and (4) his acceptance of responsibility.[8]
(4) The Court may consider Mr. White's motion "without presentation, hearing or argument."[9] The Court will decide his motion on the papers filed and the complete sentencing record in Mr. White's case.
(5) When considering motions for sentence modification, this Court addresses any applicable procedural bars before turning to the merits.[10] Mr. White does not address those bars to consideration of his Rule 35(b) motion. The Court must. While Mr. White's entreaty - one seeking modification of a term of partial confinement or probation - is not subject to Rule 35's 90-day time bar, [11] it can and should be denied because it is repetitive.
(6) As noted, Mr. White previously filed an unsuccessful application to reduce or modify his sentence.[12] As our Supreme Court and this Court have consistently held, Rule 35(b) prohibits consideration of repetitive requests for sentence reduction or modification.[13] There is no exception to the repetitive motion bar.[14] And the repetitive motion bar is applicable even when the request is for reduction or modification of a term of partial confinement or probation.[15]

         NOW, THEREFORE, the Court DENIES Dahmere White's Rule 35(b) motion for reduction of sentence.

         SO ORDERED.

---------

Notes:

[1] Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, ยงยง 1447A(a) and (b), 4205(b)(2) (2015) (PFDCF is a class B felony for which one must serve at least three years of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.