State v. Brown

• Court: Superior Court of Delaware
• Decided: March 12, 2026
• Docket: 2304010070
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE, ) ) v. ) ID No. 2304010070 ) JAIAYRE BROWN, ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER

On this 12th day of March, 2026, upon consideration of Jaiayre Brown’s

(“Defendant”) pro se Motion to Modify Sentence (the “Motion”) made pursuant to

Superior Court Rule of Criminal Procedure (“Rule”) 35(b),1 the sentence imposed

upon Defendant, and the record in this case, it appears to the Court that:

1. On August 29, 2023, Defendant pleaded guilty to Carrying a Concealed

Deadly Weapon (“CCDW”) (a Class D Violent Felony) and Possession of

Ammunition by a Person Prohibited (“PABPP”) (a Class D Nonviolent Felony).

2. The Court sentenced Defendant on September 7, 2023. 2

3. On December 1, 2025, Defendant filed the instant Motion, in which he

requests that the Court modify his Level IV (DOC Discretion) sentence to Level III

1 Docket Item (hereinafter “D.I.”) 18 (hereinafter “Mot.”). 2 D.I. 14. For PABPP, Defendant received eight years of Level V supervision, suspended after three years for six months of Level IV supervision (DOC Discretion), followed by one year and six months of Level III supervision. For CCDW, Defendant received eight years of Level V supervision, suspended after six months for eighteen months of Level III supervision (probation concurrent with the sentence for PABPP). (GPS) or, alternatively, Level IV (Home Confinement), to be held at Level III

(GPS). 3 Defendant explains that modification is merited because he might be moved

downstate when the Plummer Center closes, which could deprive him of his local

support network, a prospective host for Level IV (Home Confinement), and an

employment opportunity.4

4. The Court considers motions for modification of sentence under Rule

35(b). Before addressing the merits of a motion, the Court first considers the

applicable procedural bars.5

5. Rule 35(b) mandates that the Court will not consider repetitive requests

for sentence reduction. 6 A Rule 35(b) motion is considered repetitive even if the

later motion raises new arguments.7

6. Defendant has previously requested modification of his sentence. 8 As

mandated by Rule 35(b), this Motion is repetitive, and it cannot be considered by the

Court. Hence, Defendant’s Motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Sheldon K. Rennie, Judge

3 Mot. p. 4. 4 Id. at p. 3. 5 State v. Redden, 111 A.3d 602, 606 (Del. Super. 2015). 6 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b). 7 State v. Culp, 152 A.3d 141, 144 (Del. 2016). 8 See D.I. 15 (Motion for Sentence Reduction), D.I. 16 (Order Denying Motion for Sentence Reduction). 2