State v. Dunham

• Court: Superior Court of Delaware
• Decided: October 2, 2023
• Docket: 2308002596
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE, ) ) v. ) ID No. 2308002596 ) DAMEAN M. DUNHAM, ) ) Defendant. ) )

Date Submitted: September 11, 2023 Date Decided: October 2, 2023

ORDER

Upon consideration of Defendant Damean Dunham’s Motion for Sentence

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

decisional law, and the record, IT APPEARS THAT:

(1) On August 30, 2023, Dunham pled guilty to Driving with a Suspended

and/or Revoked License (N23-08-0627-I) and Carrying a Concealed Deadly

Weapon (“CCDW”) (N23-08-0626-I).2 Dunham seeks to modify his sentence for

Driving with a Suspended and/or Revoked License. On that charge, Dunham was

sentenced to a mandatory minimum of 60 days of unsuspended Level V time and

required to pay costs and a $1,000 fine.3

1 D.I. 4. 2 D.I. 2. 3 D.I. 3. Dunham’s sentence for CCDW is as follows: 8 years at level V, suspended for 1 year at Level II. Id. Conditions of Dunham’s sentence include forfeiture of the firearm seized and no driving without insurance or a license. Id. 1 (2) Dunham filed the instant Motion on September 11, 2023.4 He requests

that the Court suspend his remaining Level V time for probation.5 In support of his

request, Dunham states that Howard Young Correctional Institution is overcrowded,

and his good conduct weighs in favor of his modification request.6

(3) Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b) governs motions for modification

of sentence.7 The purpose of Rule 35(b) is to “provide a reasonable period for the

Court to consider alteration of its sentencing judgments.”8 Rule 35(b) contains

procedural bars for timeliness and repetitiveness.9 Under Rule 35(b), the “[C]ourt

may reduce a sentence of imprisonment on a motion made within 90 days after the

sentence is imposed.”10 Furthermore, under Rule 35(b) “[t]he [C]ourt will not

consider repetitive requests for reduction of sentence.”11 Additionally, the Court

cannot modify the minimum mandatory portion of a sentence.12

(4) Dunham’s Motion is not procedurally barred. It was filed on September

11, 2023, which is within 90 days from when he was sentenced as required by Rule

35(b).13 This is Dunham’s first motion, and therefore it is not barred as repetitive.

4 D.I. 4. 5 Id. 6 Id. Mr. Dunham also states COVID-19 as a concern. Id. 7 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b). 8 State v. Remedio, 108 A.3d 326, 331 (Del. Super. 2014). 9 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b). 10 Id. 11 Id. 12 11 Del. C. § 4204(d). 13 D.I. 3-4. 2 (5) Dunham’s unsuspended sentence of 60 days at Level V for Driving with

a Suspended and/or Revoked License is a mandatory minimum sentence and the

Court lacks the authority to reduce it.14 Moreover, the Court finds the sentence is

appropriate for all the reasons stated at the time of sentencing.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s

Motion for Sentence Modification is DENIED.

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

cc: Original to Prothonotary Marc Petrucci, DAG Damean Dunham (SBI # 00878708)

14 See 21 Del. C. § 2756(a). 3