State v. Bunke

• Court: Superior Court of Delaware
• Decided: November 12, 2024
• Docket: 1410006032
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE, ) ) v. ) I.D. # 1410006032 ) KEVIN M. BUNKE, ) ) Defendant. )

Submitted: September 27, 2024 Decided: November 12, 2024

ORDER DENYING KEVIN M. BUNKE’S MOTION FOR SENTENCE REDUCTION

Having considered Kevin M. Bunke’s (“Bunke”) Motion for Sentence

Reduction (the “Motion”), for the following reasons, the Motion is DENIED.

Factual and Procedural Background

1. On June 3, 2015, Bunke pled guilty to Reckless Endangerment, Driving

Under the Influence (“DUI”) of Drugs, Theft of a Motor Vehicle, and Second-Degree

Vehicular Assault. On June 24, 2016, effective October 9, 2014, Bunke was

sentenced as a habitual offender pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 4214(a)1 as follows: (1)

Reckless Endangerment, 8 years at Level V; (2) Second Degree Vehicular Assault, 1

1 Bunke v. State, 154 A.3d 1167 (TABLE), 2017 WL 446891, at *1 (Del. Jan. 17, 2017). year at Level V, suspended immediately for 1 year at Level III; and (3) DUI, 1 year

at Level V, suspended immediately for 1 year at Level III.2

2. On July 25, 2016, Bunke filed a Motion for Sentence Modification. On

August 4, 2016, the Court denied the First Motion, finding that the sentences

imposed were appropriate.3 On January 19, 2017, Bunke filed a second Motion of

Sentence Modification, which was also denied.4

3. On March 9, 2022, Bunke was found to be in violation of probation

(“VOP”) and was ordered to serve the remaining Level V and III time from his

original sentence.5 Bunke filed two subsequent Motions for Sentence Modification

challenging the March 2022 VOP sentencing.6 The Court denied both, finding that

Bunke’s sentences remained appropriate. 7

The Motion

4. In June 2023, Bunke absconded from probation. A capias was issued,

and Bunke was incarcerated on August 10, 2024.

5. On August 13, 2024, Bunke was found to be in violation of probation.8

He was sentenced on August 21, 2024, effective August 10, 2024, to 1 year and 6

2 D.I. 11. 3 D.I. 18. 4 D.I. 26. 5 D.I. 43. 6 D.I. 47, 49. 7 D.I. 48, 50. 8 D.I. 66. 2 months at Level V, suspended immediately for 6 months at Level IV.9 On September

27, 2024, Bunke filed the Motion, challenging his August 2024 VOP sentence.

6. Bunke seeks to reduce his sentence to time served, pending his

completion of The Way Home Program.10 In support, Bunke states that his girlfriend

needs his assistance as a home health aide. He also reports that he has a job as a

painter after release and plans to complete community service.

Analysis

7. A motion to modify or reduce a sentence is governed by Superior Court

Criminal Rule 35(b). It provides that the Court “may reduce the term or conditions

of partial confinement at any time.”11 “Rule 35(b) places the burden of proof on the

movant to establish cause to modify a lawfully imposed sentence.”12 While the rule

does not specify specific criteria for a movant to satisfy in meeting this burden,

“common sense dictates that the Court may modify a sentence if present

circumstances indicate that the previously imposed sentence is no longer

appropriate.”13 Rule 35(b) “flatly prohibits repetitive requests for reduction of

sentence.”14

9 D.I. 66. 10 D.I. 69. 11 State v. Conyer, 2024 WL 1526624, at *1 (Del. Super. Apr. 9. 2024), quoting Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b) (cleaned up). 12 Id. 13 State v. Bailey, 2017 WL 8787504, at *1 (Del. Super. Oct. 3, 2017). 14 State v. Robinson, 2024 WL 1192973, at *2 (Del. Super. Mar. 18, 2024), citing State v. Redden, 111 A.3d 602, 609 (Del. Super.), as corrected (Apr. 17, 2015). 3 8. The Motion is Bunke’s first challenging the August 2024 VOP

sentence. There is no time limitation on seeking modification of partial confinement.

Thus, his motion is not procedurally barred.

9. Bunke absconded from probation for over a year. The Court continues

to find the August 2024 sentence appropriate. While the Court is sympathetic to

Bunke’s desire to assist his girlfriend, “familial . . . hardships [are not a basis] for

granting a Rule 35 motion.”15 Bunke has not presented compelling evidence that

warrants modification of the sentencing. Thus, the Motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Kathleen M. Miller Kathleen M. Miller, Judge

cc: Original to prothonotary Kevin M. Bunke, SBI # 00776708 Matthew A. Moore, Probation Officer

15 State v. Jiminez, 2020 WL 5117944, at *3 (Del. Super. Aug. 31, 2020). 4