State v. Adams

• Court: Superior Court of Delaware
• Decided: August 19, 2025
• Docket: 2208006276 2208005380
• Status: Published

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 August 15, 2025 the Defendant, Aamir Adams, filed a Motion to Modify

his sentence under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35. This is the second request that

the Defendant has made to modify his sentence. 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 remorse, his strong rehabilitation efforts as demonstrated by the

number of programs he has completed at level V, a lack of a prior criminal

record, and his family and community 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. Rule 35(b) specifically bars repetitive requests for reduction of a sentence.

Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b). On July 26, 2024 this Court denied a

request to modify Defendant’s sentence which was based on similar

grounds. Defendant’s motion is barred as repetitive.

5. Even if not barred the motion is without merit. 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

1 Superior Court Criminal Rule 35. 2 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b). “extraordinary circumstances.”3 A heavy burden is placed on the inmate to

establish “extraordinary circumstances in order to uphold the finality of

sentences.”4

6. 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

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

7. 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.

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). 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). 8. 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.

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 19th day of August, 2025

.

/s/ Francis J. Jones, Jr. Francis J. Jones, Jr., Judge

cc: Original to the Prothonotary Mr. Aamir Adams, HRYCI, SBI No.: 00966986 William H. Leonard, Deputy Attorney General