State v. Dalrymple

• Court: Superior Court of Delaware
• Decided: March 14, 2024
• Docket: 1909009948
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE, ) ) v. ) ID No. 1909009948 ) TANJUALAYA DALRYMPLE, ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER

1. On this 14th day of March, 2024, upon consideration of Defendant

Tanjualaya Dalrymple’s (“Defendant”) pro se Motion for Sentence Modification

(the “Motion”) made pursuant to Superior Court Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b),1

the sentence imposed upon Defendant, and the record in this case, it appears to the

Court that:

2. On January 21, 2020, Defendant pled guilty to Aggravated Menacing

(Class E Violent Felony).2 On the same day, the Court sentenced her to five years of

Level V supervision, suspended for one year of Level III supervision.3

3. On February 21, 2020, the Delaware Department of Correction (“DOC”)

stated that Defendant had violated probation by testing positive for nonprescribed

controlled substances on February 5, 2020, February 11, 2020, and February 18,

1 D.I.s 44, 45. 2 D.I. 9. 3 D.I. 10. 2020, and failing to comply with curfew on February 3, 2020.4 On April 7, 2020,

the Court sentenced her to five years of Level V supervision, suspended immediately

for one year of Level III supervision.5

4. On May 21, 2020, the DOC stated that Defendant had violated probation

by failing to report to her probation officer and to Treatment Access Center

monitoring. On February 17, 2022, the Court sentenced her to four years and ten

months of Level V supervision, suspended after successful completion of Level V

inpatient drug treatment for one year of Level III supervision.6

5. On March 4, 2022, the DOC stated that Defendant had violated probation

by allegedly committing the criminal offenses of Criminal Mischief, Resisting

Arrest, Endangering the Welfare of a Child, Theft, and Shoplifting during the

probationary period, failing to report to her probation officer, and leaving the state

without authorization. Separately, on October 27, 2022, the DOC stated that

Defendant had violated probation by allegedly committing the criminal offenses of

Receiving Stolen Property, Disregarding a Police Officer’s Signal, Conspiracy in the

Second Degree, Theft, Criminal Mischief, Shoplifting, and various driving

violations during the probationary period. The DOC also stated that Defendant had

4 D.I.s 11, 15. 5 D.I. 18. 6 D.I. 23. On June 7, 2022, Defendant wrote a letter to this Court in which she asked the Court to correct what she believed to be a typo on her sentence order. D.I. 24. On June 14, 2022, the Court modified the sentence order to correct the sentence date, and this modification did not change the duration of the sentence.

2 failed to report to her probation officer.7 On February 15, 2023, the Court sentenced

her to four years and eight months of Level V supervision, suspended after 122 days

for successful completion of Level III Psychotherapeutic Services, Inc. (“PSI”)

treatment, followed by one year of Level III supervision.8

6. On April 19, 2023, the DOC stated that Defendant had violated probation

as a result of being terminated from PSI for failing to comply with program rules

and for disrupting the program.9 On May 11, 2023, the Court sentenced her to four

years and three months of Level V supervision, suspended for one year of Level III

supervision.10

7. On June 16, 2023, the DOC stated that Defendant had violated probation

by testing positive for nonprescribed controlled substances on May 24, 2022, and

letting her GPS monitoring device become inoperative. Separately, on June 24,

2023, the DOC stated that Defendant had violated probation by allegedly committing

the criminal offenses of Shoplifting and Conspiracy in the Third Degree during the

probationary period. On July 13, 2023, the Court sentenced her to four years and

three months of Level V supervision, suspended for successful completion of Level

7 D.I. 28. 8 D.I. 29. 9 D.I. 33. 10 D.I. 34. In the same sentence order, the Court sentenced Defendant for violations of probation in other cases, but those charges and their corresponding sentences need not be considered here. Id.

3 IV supervision (DOC Discretion), followed by one year of Level III aftercare

treatment.11

8. On November 1, 2023, Defendant sent a letter to this Court, in which she

asks this Court to modify her sentence to Level V supervision until her request to

have her supervision transferred out-of-state is approved. She states that, since her

involvement in a Prison Rape Elimination Act investigation began, tension in the

treatment facility has put her rehabilitation at risk.12

9. Thereafter, on December 5, 2023, Defendant filed the instant Motion, in

which she asks this Court to modify the conditions of the probationary period of her

sentence. Specifically, she requests that the Level III portion of her sentence be

transferred to Fayetteville, North Carolina, where her father resides.13 The Court

addresses both requests below.

10. Rule 35(b) authorizes this Court to “reduce the fine or term or conditions

of partial confinement or probation, at any time.” A motion to modify the terms of

partial confinement or probation is not subject to the ninety-day limitation that

applies to a motion for sentence reduction.14 In Delaware, the DOC oversees

11 D.I. 43. In the same sentence order, the Court sentenced Defendant for a violation of probation in another case, but that charge and sentence need not be considered here. Id. 12 D.I. 44. 13 D.I. 45. 14 State v. Harmon, 2023 WL 7599111, at *1 (Del. Super. Nov. 14, 2023) (quoting State v. Bailey, 2017 WL 8787504, at *1 (Del. Super. Oct. 3, 2017)).

4 probationers’ applications for out-of-state transfers made pursuant to the Interstate

Compact for Adult Offender Supervision.15

11. When this Court sentenced Defendant for her most recent violation of

probation, it gave the DOC discretion to determine the placement for the Level IV

portion of her sentence that best addresses her treatment and rehabilitation needs.

Defendant states that the DOC placed her at “HDP,” the Hazel D. Plant Women’s

Treatment Facility.16 Defendant has not presented just cause for the Court to

question the DOC’s facility placement decision, by modifying the Level IV

supervision portion of her sentence to Level V supervision. Further, the DOC is best

suited to oversee Defendant’s out-of-state transfer application, not this Court.

Hence, Defendant’s Motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________________________ Sheldon K. Rennie, Judge

Original to Prothonotary

cc: Tanjualaya Dalrymple (SBI #00611715)

15 See State v. Williams, 2013 WL 6913265, at *1 (Del. Super. Dec. 31, 2013). 16 See D.I. 44.