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. Davis

Superior Court of Delaware

July 24, 2019

STATE OF DELAWARE,
v.
AHJALIK S. DAVIS, Defendant.

          Submitted: July 22, 2019

         Defendant's Motion for Relief from Sex Offender Designation Denied.

          Kevin B. Smith, Esquire of the Department of Justice, Dover, Delaware; attorney for the State.

          Kathleen K. Amalfitano, Esquire of the Office of the Public Defender, Dover, Delaware; attorney for Defendant.

          ORDER

          HON. WILLIAM L. WITHAM, JR. JUDGE.

         Presently before the Court is Ahjalik Davis (hereinafter "Petitioner") and his Motion for Relief from Sex Offender Designation. The Petitioner moves to be relieved from sex offender designation that stemmed from his conviction in this Court on one count of Unlawful Sexual Contact in the Third Degree, pursuant to 11 Del. C. §§ 4120 and 4121.

         After considering the Petitioner's motion and the arguments of the parties at the hearing, it appears to the Court that:

         1. On November 6, 2017, the Petitioner pled guilty to one count of Unlawful Sexual Contact in the Third Degree, a misdemeanor, in violation of 11 Del. C. § 767. This is a Tier I designated offense pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 4121(d)(3). The victim in the case was not a child under thirteen years of age.

         2. On February 14, 2018, the Petitioner was sentenced to one year supervision at Level V, which was suspended for one year supervision at Level III.[1] As a result of his conviction, he was further required to be designated as a Tier 1 sex offender.[2]

         3. The Petitioner filed his motion on February 7, 2018 and moved to be relieved from the sex offender designation. The State did not submit a formal reply in opposition, but submitted its opposition to the Petitioner's motion at the hearing held on July 22, 2019.[3]

         4. On October 9, 2018, subsequent to filing his motion for relief, the Petitioner was found in violation of probation due to positive urinalyses for marijuana and noncompliance with the Court's order to complete a Sexual Disorders Counseling Treatment Program.[4] The Petitioner had also failed to find employment or attend school.

         5. The Petitioner reentered the Sexual Disorders Treatment Program subsequent his violation of probation. On May 1, 2019, however, he was once again discharged unsuccessfully and reported for this, as well as other probation violations including failure to appear at the probation office every Monday and violating curfew.[5]

         6. The Petitioner asserts that relief from sex offender designation is warranted as he has complied with statutory requirements pursuant to 11 Del. ...


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.