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. Ducette

Superior Court of Delaware

December 31, 2019

STATE OF DELAWARE,
v.
TYREEK DUCETTE, Defendant.

          Submitted: December 20, 2019

          Cr. A. Nos. IN15-03-1133, etc.

          ORDER DENYING REPETITIVE MOTION TO REDUCE OR MODIFY SENTENCE

          Paul R. Wallace, Judge.

         This 31st day of December, 2019, upon consideration of the Defendant Tyreek Ducette's Motion for Sentence Reduction or Modification (D.I. 39[*]) and the record in this matter, it appears to the Court that:

         (1) On March 7, 2017, following a non-jury trial, the Court convicted the Defendant Tyreek Ducette of one count of Possession of a Firearm by a Person Prohibited ("PFBPP") and one count of Possession of Ammunition by a Person Prohibited ("PABPP").[1]

         (2) Mr. Ducette then pleaded guilty in May 2017 to another PFBPP charge arising from a criminal episode that occurred while he was on bail for his first firearms offense and was caught with another loaded handgun.[2]

         (3) His consolidated sentencing hearing occurred a month later on June 16, 2017. Mr. Ducette was sentenced to: (a) PFBPP (INI6-08-1590) -five years at Level V; (b) PFBPP (INI 6-11-1507) - five years at Level V; and (c) PABPP (INI 6-08-1976) - eight years at Level V, suspended in its entirety for eight years at Level IV (DOC Discretion), suspended after six months for two years at Level III.[3] The sentence has an effective date of November 20, 2016, and includes 63 days of credit time.[4] Each five-year term of imprisonment for his PFBPP convictions (IN16-08-1590 and INI 6-11-1507) is a minimum term of incarceration that must be imposed and cannot be suspended or reduced due to Mr. Ducette's prior violent felony conviction.[5] Thus, the unsuspended ten-year Level V term of Mr. Ducette's sentence is comprised of cumulated minimum or mandatory periods of incarceration and cannot be suspended or reduced.

         (4) Mr. Ducette filed no direct appeal from his convictions or sentences. Instead, he docketed an application under Rule 35(b) requesting reduction of his cumulative Level V term.[6] That motion was denied.[7]

         (5) Mr. Ducette has now docketed another motion under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b) requesting reduction of his Level V term.[8] He asks now that the Court order his mandatory terms of confinement imposed for his separate PFBPP counts to run concurrently.[9] In effect, this would cut Mr. Ducette's prison term in half. According to Mr. Ducette, this relief is permitted by "New House Bill No. 5."[10]

         (6) The Court may consider such a motion "without presentation, hearing or argument."[11] The Court will decide his motion on the papers filed and the complete sentencing record in Mr. Ducette's case.

         (7) When considering motions for sentence reduction or modification, this Court addresses any applicable procedural bars before turning to the merits.[12]

         (8) 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 accordingly, the Court must deny Mr. Ducette's Rule 35(b) motion on this basis alone.[15]

         (9) To the extent Mr. Ducette suggests that "House Bill No. 5"[16]- which recently further expanded a Delaware sentencing judge's authority to impose concurrent, rather than consecutive terms of confinement-provides some alternative avenue for relief under Rule 35(b), he is incorrect. "Rule 35(b) is not now, nor ever has been, an instrument for reexamination of previously imposed sentences in light of subsequent statutory changes."[17]

         (10) Lastly, Mr. Ducette is asking for the retroactive application of the 2019 Amended Sentencing Act (i.e., "House Bill No. 5")-a sentencing reform provision enacted while he was already in prison serving his sentence. As this Court held recently, "the General Assembly neither provided for such retroactivity explicitly nor included special procedures to address its retrospective application."[18] Thus, application of the 2019 Amended Sentencing Act to modify the terms of Mr. ...


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.