State v. Bingham

• Court: Superior Court of Delaware
• Decided: June 11, 2024
• Docket: 1805010686
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE, ) ) ) ) v. ) ID No. 1805010686 ) SHAUN C. BINGHAM, ) ) ) Defendant. ) )

Date Submitted: May 6, 2024 Date Decided: June 11, 2024

ORDER

Upon consideration of Defendant Shaun C. Bingham’s Letter Motion for

Sentence Modification (“Motion”),1 Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b), statutory

and decisional law, and the record in this case, IT APPEARS THAT:

(1) On January 7, 2019, Bingham pled guilty to Robbery First Degree

(IN18-05-1109), Robbery Second Degree (IN18-05-1099), and Attempted Robbery

Second Degree (IN18-05-1100).2 By Order dated May 10, 2019, effective May 18,

2018, the Court sentenced Bingham as follows: for Robbery First Degree, 10 years

at Level V,3 suspended after 5 years for 1 year Level IV CREST, suspended after

1 D.I. 30. 2 D.I. 8. 3 The first five years of this sentence are mandatory. successful completion for 1 year at Level III CREST AFTERCARE; for Robbery

Second Degree, 5 years at Level V, suspended after 15 months for 1 year Level III;

and for Attempted Robbery Second Degree, 5 years at Level V, suspended after 15

months for 1 year Level III.4

(2) On January 8, 2024, the Court modified Bingham’s sentence to remove

“Level V Key Programming and Level IV Residential treatment in accordance with

11 Del. C. § 6530 and Department of Correction (“DOC”) Policy 4.6

Classification.”5 Bingham’s Level IV sentence changed to “DOC Discretion” and

“CREST” and “CREST AFTERCARE” were eliminated.6

(3) On May 6, 2024, Bingham filed the instant Motion.7 In his Motion,

Bingham states he has started treatment at Level V in the “R2R Program,” and asks

the Court to suspend the Level IV portion of his sentence upon completion of the

R2R Program.8 In support of his Motion, Bingham states that his support system is

in South Carolina and that without his Level IV sentence he would be able to begin

the process of transferring his probation to South Carolina.9

(4) Rule 35(b) governs motions for modification or reduction of sentence.10

4 D.I. 9. Bingham’s probation is to run concurrently. Id. 5 D.I. 29. 6 Id. 7 D.I. 30. 8 Id. 9 Id. 10 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b). Under Rule 35(b) the Court may “reduce the fine or term or conditions of partial

confinement or probation, at any time.”11 Rule 35(b) also mandates that “[t]he

[C]ourt will not consider repetitive requests for reduction of sentence.”12 The

Delaware Supreme Court held in Teat v. State, that while motions for modification

of partial confinement are not subject to Rule 35’s Level V time-bar, they are subject

to the bar against repetitive motions.13 “[T]his bar is absolute and flatly ‘prohibits

repetitive requests for reduction of sentence.’”14

(5) This is Bingham’s fifth motion for modification of sentence.15

(6) Level IV is “a highly structured community-based supervision setting”

and an important factor in a Court’s sentencing scheme.16 Bingham asks the Court

to consider the Level V R2R Program as the equivalent of the program he believes

he will be required to complete at Level IV.17 DOC evaluates and determines the

appropriate Level IV programming. As part of Bingham’s sentence he is encouraged

11 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b); see also State v. Redden, 111 A.3d 602, 609 (Del. Super. 2015) (holding that “[a] motion for modification of partial confinement or probation is not subject to the ninety-day limitation applicable to a motion for reduction of imprisonment.”). 12 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b) (emphasis added). 13 See 31 A.2d 77 (TABLE), 2011 WL 4839042, at *1 (Del. 2011); see also State v. Bennett, 2015 WL 1746239, at *2 (Del. Super. Apr. 13, 2015) (“While [Defendant’s] motion – one seeking modification of a term of partial confinement or probation – is not subject to Rule 35’s 90–day time bar, it can and should be denied because it is repetitive.”). 14 State v. Redden, 111 A.3d at 609 (quoting Thomas v. State, 2002 WL 31681804, at *1 (Del. Nov. 25, 2002)). 15 See D.I. 11, 13, 15, 19. 16 See State v. Redden, 111 A.3d at 609. 17 D.I. 30. to undergo substance abuse treatment at Levels V, IV, and III.18 A term of Level IV

supervision will facilitate Bingham’s treatment, rehabilitation, and transition after

incarceration. 19

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Bingham’s Letter

Motion for Sentence Modification is DENIED.

/s/ Jan R. Jurden Jan R. Jurden, President Judge

Original to Prothonotary

cc: Dominic A. Carrera, DAG Shaun C. Bingham (SBI # 00574490)

18 See D.I. 29. 19 See State v. Bennett, 2015 WL 1746239, at *2.