L. Medinilla Judge.
NOW TO WIT, this 5th day of November
2019, upon consideration of Defendant Juan Colon's
("Defendant") Motion for Modification of Sentence,
the sentence imposed upon the Defendant, and the record in
this case, it appears to the Court that:
October 3, 2012, J. Babiarz Jr. sentenced Defendant to eight
years at Level V, suspended after five years for one year at
Level III, for violating probation on a 2007 charge of
Trafficking Cocaine. On May 1, 2013, Defendant pled guilty to
Drug Dealing Tier 1 with an Aggravating Factor. On July 5, 2013,
Defendant was declared a habitual offender pursuant to 11
Del. C. § 4241(a) and was sentenced to a minimum
mandatory of two years Level V incarceration.
August 12, 2019, Defendant asked this Court to
modify his sentence under Rule 35(b). Defendant requests this
Court to modify/reduce his sentence by awarding "time
served" and providing "discharge from Level 3
probation." In support of his motion, Defendant states
the following grounds for relief: (1) "time served"
- Defendant argues that he was sentenced to one year at Level
III and has completed that sentence; (2) "conditional
release" - Defendant argues that his conditional release
was affected by his 11 Del. C. § 4216(b) sentence, and (3)
"completion of probation" - Defendant argues that
he "has been successful and productive since his release
. . . ."
Defendant has made numerous requests to reduce or modify his
sentence. Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b)
provides that "[t]he court will not consider
repetitive requests for reduction of
sentence." Unlike the ninety-day jurisdictional limit
with its "extraordinary circumstances" exception,
the bar to repetitive motions has no exception. This Court
has denied Defendant's requests in 2014 and
2016. Defendant's motion is barred because
it is repetitive in nature.
Furthermore, as to Defendant's claims surrounding
probation, Defendant's prior time spent on probation was
violated, and the time at Level III currently being served
does not relate to the probation previously violated. The
current term of probation has not been fulfilled. Moreover,
as to Defendant's claim surrounding his mandatory minimum
sentence, Superior Court Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b)
provides no authority for a reduction or suspension of the
mandatory portion of a substantive statutory minimum
sentence. As such, the sentence was and remains
appropriate for all the reasons stated at the time of
IS SO ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for
Modification of Sentence is DENIED.
 Contested VOP Hearing: Defendant Found
in Violation. Sentenced, State of Delaware v. Juan E.
Colon, Crim. ID No. 0706006701, D.I. 35 (Del. Super.
Oct. 3, 2012).
 Case Review Plea Hearing, State of
Delaware v. Juan E. Colon, Crim. ID No. 1207022774, D.I.
25 (Del. Super. May 1, 2013). "
 Motion to Declare Defendant a Habitual
Offender Granted, State of Delaware v. Juan E.
Colon, Crim. ID No. 1207022774, D.I. 29 (Del. Super.
July 05, 2013).
 Defendant's Motion for
Modification, State of Delaware v. Juan E. Colon,
Crim. ID No. 1207022774, D.I. 46 (Aug. 12, 2019) [hereinafter