IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
STATE OF DELAWARE, )
)
v. ) ID No. 1602002148
)
JAHEEL S. PARKER, )
)
Defendant. )
Date Submitted: February 24, 2020
Date Decided: June 25, 2020
ORDER
Upon consideration of Defendant’s Motion for Reduction of Sentence
(“Motion”), Superior Court Criminal Rule 35, statutory and decisional law, and the
record in this case, IT APPEARS THAT:
1. On September 19, 2016, Defendant pled guilty to Possession of a
Firearm by a Person Prohibited (“PFBPP”), Burglary First Degree, and Assault
Second Degree.1 By Order dated December 9, 2016, effective February 4, 2016,
Defendant was sentenced as follows: for PFBPP, IN16-02-0485, 10 years 6 months
at Level V, suspended after 5 years, for 2 years 6 months at Level IV (DOC
Discretion), suspended after 6 months, for 2 years at supervision Level III; 2 for
Burglary First Degree, IN16-02-0484, 5 years at Level V, suspended after 3 years,
1
D.I. 7.
2
The first 3 years of this sentence is a mandatory term of incarceration pursuant to 11 Del. C. §
1448.
for 2 years at supervision Level III;3 for Assault Second Degree, IN16-02-0477, 4
years at Level V, suspended after 2 years, for 2 years at supervision Level III. 4
2. On February 24, 2020, Defendant filed the instant Motion, asking the
Court to reduce 1 year from his total Level V time.5 In support of his Motion,
Defendant cites: his G.E.D.; his successful completion of the Key Program; and the
support of his family.6
3. Superior Court Criminal Rule 35 governs motions for modification of
sentence. “Under Rule 35(b), a motion for sentence modification must be filed
within ninety days of sentencing, absent a showing of ‘extraordinary
circumstances.’”7 The Court will not consider repetitive requests for reduction or
modification of sentence.8
4. This is Defendant’s second request to modify his sentences under Rule
35(b), and it is therefore barred as repetitive.9
5. In addition, Defendant filed this Motion more than 3 years after the
3
The first 3 years of this sentence is a mandatory term of incarceration pursuant to 11 Del. C. §
826.
4
D.I. 9. Probation is concurrent.
5
D.I. 12.
6
Id.
7
Croll v. State, 2020 WL 1909193, at *1 (Del. Apr. 17, 2020) (TABLE) (affirming the Superior
Court’s denial of a motion for modification of sentence where the motion was repetitive and filed
beyond the 90-day limit); see Hewett v. State, 2014 WL 5020251, at *1 (Del. Oct. 7, 2014) (“When
a motion for reduction of sentence is filed within ninety days of sentencing, the Superior Court has
broad discretion to decide whether to alter its judgment.”).
8
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b).
9
See D.I. 10, 12.
2
imposition of his sentences, it is therefore time-barred under Rule 35(b).
6. The Court will consider an application made more than 90 days after
the imposition of sentence only in “extraordinary circumstances,” or pursuant to 11
Del. C. § 4217. Delaware law places a heavy burden on the moving party to
establish extraordinary circumstances in order to “uphold the finality of sentences.”10
“Extraordinary circumstances” excusing an untimely Rule 35(b) motion are
circumstances that “specifically justify the delay, are entirely beyond a petitioner’s
control, and have prevented the applicant from seeking the remedy on a timely
basis.”11 Mitigating factors that could have been presented at sentence, exemplary
conduct, or successful rehabilitation while incarcerated does not constitute
“extraordinary circumstances.”12
7. Defendant has not established “extraordinary circumstances”
warranting a reduction or modification of his sentence under Rule 35(b).
Furthermore, the DOC has not submitted an application under 11 Del. C. § 4217.
8. While the Court commends Defendant for his rehabilitation efforts, the
Court finds that Defendant’s sentences are appropriate for all the reasons stated at
10
State v. Diaz, 2015 WL 1741768, at *2 (Del. Apr. 15, 2015).
11
State v. Culp, 152 A.3d 141, 145 (Del. 2016) (internal quotations omitted) (quoting Diaz, 2015
WL 1741768, at *2).
12
See id. at 145–46 (recognizing that participation in educational and rehabilitative prison
programs is commendable, but does not by itself constitute “extraordinary circumstances” for
purposes of Rule 35(b)).
3
the time of sentencing. 13 No additional information has been provided to the Court
that would warrant a reduction or modification of these sentences.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s
Motion for Reduction of Sentence is DENIED.
Jan R. Jurden
Jan R. Jurden, President Judge
Original to Prothonotary:
cc: Jaheel Parker (SBI# 00602926)
Annemarie H. Puit, DAG
13
See D.I. 9.
4
State v. Parker
Combined Opinion