State v. Adams
This text of State v. Adams (State v. Adams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
STATE OF DELAWARE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) I.D.: 2208006276 v. ) 2208005380 ) AAMIR ADAMS, ) ) Defendant. )
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO MODIFY SENTENCE
On July 11, 2024 the Defendant, Aamir Adams, filed a Motion to Modify his
sentence under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35. Having considered the Defendant’s
Motion and this Court’s review of the record, it appears to the Court that:
1. On August 21, 2023 Adams was sentenced to the following charges to
which he pled guilty: Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of
a Felony- 10 years at Level V, suspended after 3 years (which is a
minimum mandatory term) for one year at Level III; Reckless Endangering
3 years at Level V suspended after 1 year at Level V; and Attempted
Assault Second Degree 8 years at Level V suspended for 2 years at Level
3. All level V time to be served consecutively and all Level III time is to
be served concurrently.
2. Defendant, through the instant Motion to Modify his sentence, requests
that the Court reduce his Level V time. In support of his petition Defendant cites his graduation from high school without incident, a lack of a prior
criminal record, his training to become a HVAC technician and the fact
that he has 2 small boys that he must care for and support.
3. The Court may consider such a request “without presentation, hearing or
argument.”1 When considering motions for sentence reduction or
modification, this Court addresses any applicable bars before turning to the
merits.
4. Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b) provides that the Court “may reduce a
sentence of imprisonment on a motion made within 90 days after the
sentence is imposed.” 2 Adams application is well past the 90 days. An
exception to this bar exists: to overcome the 90-day time limitation, an
inmate seeking to reduce a sentence of imprisonment on his own motion
must demonstrate “extraordinary circumstances.” 3 A heavy burden is
placed on the inmate to establish “extraordinary circumstances in order to
uphold the finality of sentences.”4
5. The term “extraordinary circumstance” is generally defined as “a highly
unusual set of facts that are not commonly associated with a particular
thing or event.”5 For purposes of Rule 35(b), “extraordinary circumstances
1 Superior Court Criminal Rule 35. 2 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b). 3 Armon R. Sample v. State, 2012 WL 193761 (Del. Jan 23, 2012). 4 State v. Daniel Diaz, 2015 WL 1741768 (Del. Apr 15, 2015). 5 State v. Daniel Diaz, 2015 WL 1741768 (Del. Apr 15, 2015). have been found only when an offender faces some genuinely compelling
change in circumstances that makes a resentencing urgent.”6 In short, Rule
35(b) is a rule limited to reconsideration of a sentence after the 90-day
motion deadline “only when there is a truly compelling change in that
inmates individual circumstances that presents an urgent need for revision
of the sentence terms.” 7
6. The first three years of Defendant’s sentence constitute a minimum
mandatory term and as such this court is without the authority to reduce
any level V time that constitutes a minimum mandatory term. As to the 4th
year of his Level V time the Court does have the discretion to reduce that
time if an extraordinary circumstance exists. The Court finds no such
extraordinary circumstance to exist in the present case.
7. The Court has had occasion to review this entire matter. Given the nature
of the crimes for which he is incarcerated, it is this Court’s view that
Defendant’s sentences are appropriate for all the reasons stated at the time
of his original sentencing. No additional information has been provided to
the Court that would warrant a reduction or modification of Defendant’s
sentence.
6 State v. Damien Thomas, 220 A3d 257, 262 (Del. Super. Ct. 2019). 7 State v. Michael J. Lindsey, 2020 WL 4088015 (Del. Super., July 17, 2020). Accordingly, the Court will exercise its discretion under Rule 35(b) and
DENY Mr. Adams request to reduce his Level V time.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day of July, 2024.
/s/ Francis J. Jones, Jr. Francis J. Jones, Jr., Judge
cc: Original to the Prothonotary William H. Leonard, Deputy Attorney General
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
State v. Adams, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-adams-delsuperct-2024.