State v. Ford

• Court: Superior Court of Delaware
• Decided: March 12, 2026
• Docket: 2112011168 2412005246
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE, ) ) v. ) ID Nos. 2112011168/2412005246 ) MICHAEL J. FORD, ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER

On this 12th day of March, 2026, upon consideration of Michael J. Ford’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 November 6, 2025, the Court found Defendant in violation of his

probation. 2 Defendant was sentenced to one year and eight months at Supervision

Level V, suspended for one year at Level IV (Work Release), suspended after six

months for three months at Level III.3

2. Defendant filed the Motion on December 1, 2025, requesting that the

Court replace his Level IV (Work Release) sentence with Level III (GPS). 4

Defendant contends that the travel distance between his residence (Middletown)

and his work release (Georgetown) is interfering with his recovery and making it

1 Docket Item (hereinafter “D.I.”) 62 (hereinafter “Mot.”). 2 D.I. 61 (Sentence Order). 3 Id. 4 Mot. p. 3. difficult to secure employment. 5 In further support, Defendant represents that he

has paid all court costs in full and has been admitted to the intensive outpatient

treatment program at a Middletown-based behavioral health hospital. 6

3. 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.7

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

requests for sentence reduction. 8 A Rule 35(b) motion is considered repetitive

even if the later motion raises new arguments. 9

5. Defendant has previously requested modification of his sentence.10

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

5 Id. at p. 2. 6 Id. 7 State v. Redden, 111 A.3d 602, 606 (Del. Super. 2015). 8 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b). 9 State v. Culp, 152 A.3d 141, 144 (Del. 2016). 10 See Motion for Modification (D.I. 41); Order Denying Motion for Modification (D.I. 42). 2