L. Medinilia Judge.
NOW TO WIT, this 11th day of October
2019, upon consideration of Defendant's Motion for
Reduction/Modification of Sentence, the sentence imposed upon
Defendant, and the record in this case, it appears to the
January 20, 2012, at age eighteen, Defendant was sentenced
for his first felony conviction following a home invasion
that occurred in October of 2010. He accepted a plea offer
and was sentenced for the offenses of Robbery First Degree,
Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony
(PFDCF), and Conspiracy Second Degree. Although there have
been several corrections made to his sentence through his
sentencing judge, the Honorable John A. Parkins, the most
corrected sentence reflects that for the offense of Robbery
First Degree, he received twenty years of Level V, suspended
after five years, followed by probation to include six months
at Level IV, and eighteen months at Level III. He received a
sentence of five years at Level V for the firearm charge. For
the Conspiracy Second offense, he received a suspended two
years of Level V for one year at Level II. In sum, he
received ten years of incarceration followed by transitioning
levels of probation.
Defendant has made numerous requests to L Parkins to reduce
or modify his Level V sentence. Superior Court Criminal Rule
35(b) provides that "[t]he court will not
consider repetitive requests for reduction of
sentence." Unlike the 90-day jurisdictional limit
with its "extraordinary circumstances" exception,
the bar to repetitive motions has no exception. Instead, this
bar is absolute and flatly "prohibits repetitive
requests for reduction of sentence." J. Parkins denied
his requests in 2012, 2014 and 2015.
the instant motion, Defendant does not seek to reduce his
Level V time. Instead, he seeks to modify his eighteen months
of Level III to six months. Under Superior Court Criminal
Rule 35(b), "[t]he Court may.. . reduce the ... term or
conditions of partial confinement or probation, at any
time." Defendant is not time-barred because he
does not seek to modify or reduce his Level V sentence, but
rather requests a reduction of his probation. Defendant
provides several reasons for his request. He indicates he was
only eighteen years old at the time of the offense and has
benefitted from educational opportunities while incarcerated.
He participated in programming that has allowed him to
"learn from his mistakes and prepare him for his
future." He also states that he has received an
offer of employment and that a lengthy probation may affect
his opportunity to work.
Before sentenced in 2012, Defendant indicated to the
Investigative Services Office, in his presentence
investigation, that he intended to obtain his G.E.D, complete
the Key Program, and learn a trade. He accomplished his
Court acknowledges and commends Defendant for his good
behavior and taking the initiative to improve his life while
in prison by completing many programs and obtaining his G.E.D
and completing the Key Program. The Court also congratulates
him on his employment opportunity, if it works out.
Although it is possible that a lengthy period of probation
will affect his transition back to the community and his
employment, the probationary period of eighteen months is
common for community supervision to ensure a Defendant
transitions smoothly from prison. Thus, at this
time, modification of probation is not appropriate.
Defendant remains incarcerated and needs to complete the
Level IV portion of his sentence before the Court will
consider reducing his Level III.
However, if Defendant is able to successfully complete his
six months of Level IV, the Court asks that the probation
officer submit a progress report, if deemed appropriate, to
reduce a portion of the eighteen-month period of Level III
probation. In addition, if Defendant is employed-and his job
is hindered by any portion of the remaining probation-the
Court requests that his probation officer submit a request to
modify the probationary term to allow him to work on a lower
level of probation.
IS SO ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for
Reduction/Modification of Sentence is GRANTED, in
part, DENIED, in part.
 Defendant's Request for the Court
to Add TASC to Sentence, State v. Byers, Crim. ID
No. 1102006786, D.I. 40 (Del. Super. July 03, 2012);
Defendant's Memorandum in Support for a Motion for
Sentence Reduction/Modification, State v. Byers,
Crim. ID No. 1102006786, D.I. 42 (Del. Super. July 10, 2013);
Defendant's Motion for Correction of Sentence, State
v. Byers, Crim. ID No. 1102006786, D.I. 43 (Del. Super.
Aug. 25, 2014); Defendant's Motion for ...