IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
STATE OF DELAWARE, )
)
v. ) ID No. 0310020476
)
JESSE J. CARTER, )
)
Defendant. )
Date Submitted: July 20, 2020
Date Decided: September 29, 2020
ORDER
Upon consideration of Defendant’s Motion for Modification of Sentence
(“Motion”),1 Superior Court Criminal Rule 35, statutory and decisional law, and the
record in this case, IT APPEARS THAT:
1. On March 10, 2004, the Defendant pled guilty to three counts of
Robbery First Degree and one count of Possession of Firearm During Commission
of Felony (“PFDCF”).2 By Order issued on April 30, 2004, effective on October 26,
2003, the Defendant was sentenced as follows: for the first count of Robbery First
Degree, IN03-11-0298 5 years at Level V; for the second count of Robbery First
Degree, IN03-11-0299, 5 years at Level V; for the third count of Robbery First
Degree, IN03-12-0227, 5 years at Level V, suspended after 4 years, for 6 months at
Level IV Work Release, and 6 months at Level III, hold at Level V until space is
1
D.I. 25.
2
D.I. 7.
available at Level IV; for PFDCF, IN03-12-0228, 7 years at Level V.3
2. On July 20, 2020, Defendant filed this Rule 35 Motion asking the Court
to give him “90 days level 5 and suspend the level 4 conditions . . . and any level 5
Your Honor deems appropriate to suspend to level 4.” In support of his Motion,
Defendant explains that “COVID-19 is causing serious problems with inmate[s]
being able to reach level 4[,] resulting in overcrowding conditions.” Defendant also
notes that he is not from Delaware.
3. This is Defendant’s third motion for modification of his sentence.4 The
Court does not consider repetitive requests for sentence modification.5 “A motion
is ‘repetitive’ as that term is used in Rule 35(b) when it is preceded by an earlier
Rule 35(b) motion, even if the subsequent motion raises new arguments. Rule 35(b)
does not set forth any exception to the repetitive motion bar.”6 Because this Motion
is repetitive, it is procedurally barred.
4. The sentence is appropriate for all the reasons stated at the time of
sentencing. No additional information has been provided to the Court that would
warrant a reduction or modification of this sentence.
5. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this Court finds the
3
D.I. 8. Defendant was also sentenced to pay fines and restitution. Id.
4
Defendant filed his first Motion for Modification of Sentence on June 2, 2004; the Court denied
that motion on July 7, 2004. D.I. 9, 12. Defendant filed his second Motion for Modification of
Sentence on March 27, 2019; the Court denied that motion on June 19, 2019. D.I. 23, 24.
5
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b).
6
State v. Culp, 152 A.3d 141, 144 (Del. 2016) (citation omitted).
2
Defendant has not demonstrated cause for the relief sought in the Rule 35 Motion.
NOW, THEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the Defendant’s Rule 35
Motion is DENIED.
/S/ Jan R. Jurden
Jan R. Jurden, President Judge
Original to Prothonotary:
cc: A.J. Roop, Esq., DAG
Jesse J. Carter (SBI# 00516667)
3