State v. Charles

• Court: Superior Court of Delaware
• Decided: June 11, 2024
• Docket: 1902008301
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE, ) ) v. ) ID No. 1902008301 ) ANDREW CHARLES, ) ) Defendant. )

Date Submitted: April 8, 2024 Date Decided: June 11, 2024

ORDER

Upon consideration of Defendant Andrew Charles’ (“Charles”) Motion for

Modification of Partial Confinement (“Motion”), 1 Superior Court Criminal Rule

35(b), 2 statutory and decisional law, and the record in this case, IT APPEARS

THAT:

(1) On March 28, 2019, Charles pled guilty to Possession of a Firearm by

a Person Prohibited (“PFBPP”)/Possession of Ammunition by a Person Prohibited

(“PABPP”) (N19-02-0942-I)3 and was sentenced as follows: 15 years at Level V

with credit for 15 days, suspended after 5 years at Level V for 18 months at Level

1 D.I. 9. His Motion is titled, “Motion for No-Contact with Markia Woodall and Omari Woodall.” Id. The Court reviews this as a Motion for Modification of Partial Confinement or Probation. 2 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b). 3 D.I. 3. III.4 The Court ordered Charles to have no contact with Markia Woodall and Omari

Woodall except pursuant to a valid Family Court order.5

(2) On April 11, 2024, Charles filed the instant Motion asking the Court to

lift the no-contact order with his fiancée, Markia Woodall and his son, Omari

Woodall.6

(3) Rule 35(b) governs motions for modification or reduction of sentence.7

“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.”8

(4) The Court’s authority to grant relief under Rule 35(b) is discretionary.9

Rule 35(b) does not provide specific considerations the Court must consider, rather

“the Court exercises broad discretion in determining whether a situation or set of

individual factors can be viewed.”10

(5) In support of his Motion, Charles states he and Woodall are trying to

get married and the no-contact order hinders him from being a father to his son.11

4 D.I. 5. 5 Id. 6 Id. 7 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b). 8 State v. Baily, 2017 WL 8787504, at *1 (Del. Super. Oct. 3, 2017); State v. Redden, 111 A.3d 602, 609 (Del. Super. 2015). 9 Id. 10 State v. Redden, 111 A.3d 602, 609 (2015). 11 D.I. 9. 2 He avers that the charges have nothing to do with Woodall and her son and that he

is trying to be involved in his child’s life.12

(6) The Sentencing Order expressly states: “No contact with Markia

Woodall and Omari Woodall, except pursuant to a valid Family Court order.” 13

Unless Charles is permitted to have contact with Markia Woodall and Omari

Woodall pursuant to a valid Family Court order, the Court will not modify this no-

contact order.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Andrew Charles’

Modification of Partial Confinement or Probation is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

cc: Original to Prothonotary Marc C. Petrucci, DAG Andrew Charles (SBI # 634319)

12 Id. 13 D.I. 5. 3