Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
State v. Allen
Superior Court of Delaware
April 22, 2019
STATE OF DELAWARE
TRAYVON ALLEN, Defendant.
L. Medinilla, Judge.
NOW TO WIT, this 22nd day of April, 2019,
upon consideration of Defendant Trayvon Allen's
("Defendant")'s Motion for Modification of
Sentence, the State's Response thereto, the sentence
imposed upon Defendant, and the record in this case, it
appears to the Court that:
1. On August 9, 2018, Defendant was arrested and charged with
two Counts of Possession of Firearm/Ammunition by Person
Prohibited, two Counts of Drug Dealing, two counts of Tier 1
Possession, and two Counts of Possession of Drug
Paraphernalia. Defendant had two prior qualifying Title 16
convictions and faced 2 years of mandatory imprisonment on
the drug dealing charges alone. He also faced a minimum
mandatory of 14 years of Level V imprisonment overall.
2. On February 7, 2019, Defendant entered a guilty plea to
two counts of Drug Dealing. The State and Defendant jointly
agreed to recommend the minimum mandatory with Level V time
to run consecutively. The Court followed the recommendation
and imposed the minimum mandatory sentence of 4 years
unsuspended Level V incarceration followed by probation.
3. Defendant wrote a letter to the Court filed on February
26, 2019. In it, in addition to other requests, he
appears to seek a modification of his February 7, 2019
sentence. The Court will treat his request as a request to
reduce his sentence under Delaware Superior Court Criminal
Rule 35(b). Because Defendant's Motion was filed
within the 90-day window for Rule 35(b) motions,
Defendant's Motion is timely and this Court will consider
the merits of his Motion.
4. Rule 35(b) states that the Court "may reduce a
sentence of imprisonment on a motion made within 90 days
after the sentence is imposed.""Rule 35(b) allows for a
reduction of sentence without regard to the existence of a
legal defect." Thus, relief under Rule 35(b) is within
the sound discretion of the sentencing court. Accordingly, a
timely and non-repetitive Rule 35(b) motion is
"essentially a 'plea for
5. Defendant requests that this Court modify the Level V time
to run concurrently, not consecutively. The bases for
relief are as follows: (1) That the Court was
"puzzled" why Defendant's Level V sentence was
not concurrent due to Defendant's last charge being over
12 years ago and successful employment within that time; (2)
that he understands the mistakes he made and the consequences
of his actions; and (3) that "Counsel was
ineffective" and should have noticed he is a "hard
working member of society that had a speed bump along the
6. Defendant's Motion is unpersuasive and without merit.
Although the Court may have had questions prior to
sentencing, it did not question the final sentence imposed.
It was an appropriate sentence for all the reasons noted in
the record. The sentence was imposed pursuant to a Plea
Agreement between the State and Defendant, with an agreed
7. After an appropriate colloquy, the Court addressed
Defendant in open court under Superior Court Criminal Rule
11(c)(1) and determined that he understood the nature of the
charge(s) to which the plea was offered, the mandatory
minimum penalty provided by law and the maximum statutory
penalties. Accordingly, Defendant acknowledged in open court
that the range of possible penalties included the sentence
that was imposed by the Court in this case. Although he
contends he was unable to respond differently to some of the
questions during the plea colloquy, the Delaware Supreme
Court has held that a defendant's "voluntary guilty
plea constitutes a waiver of any alleged errors occurring
before the entry of the plea. Absent clear and convincing
evidence to the contrary, [a defendant] is bound by the
answers on the Truth-in-Sentencing form and his ...
statements to the judge during the guilty plea
8. Finally, Defendant's claim for ineffective assistance
of counsel is not considered here as it is outside the scope
of Rule 35.
foregoing reasons, Defendant's Motion for Modification of
his February 7, 2019 Sentence is DENIED.
IS SO ORDERED.
Buy This Entire Record For