State v. Halsey

• Court: Superior Court of Delaware
• Decided: April 21, 2025
• Docket: 2312010152
• Status: Published

Opinion

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE ) ) v. ) I.D. No. 2312010152 ) TIMOTHY HALSEY, ) Defendant. )

Date Submitted: April 1, 2025 Date Decided: April 21, 2025

ORDER DENYING TIMOTHY HALSEY’S MOTION FOR REDUCTION/MODIFICATION OF SENTENCE

Upon consideration of the Motion for Modification and/or Reduction of

Sentence filed by Defendant Timothy Halsey (“Halsey”), Superior Court Criminal

Rule 35; the facts, arguments and legal authorities set forth in the Rule 35 Motion;

statutory and decisional law; and the entire record in this case:

1. Pursuant to Criminal Rule 35(b), the Court may reduce a sentence of

imprisonment on a motion made within 90 days after the sentence is imposed. 1 The

intent of Criminal Rule 35(b) has historically been to provide a reasonable period

for the Court to consider alteration of its sentencing judgments. 2 Where a motion

for reduction of sentence is filed under Criminal Rule 35(b) within 90 days of

sentencing, the Court has broad discretion to decide if it should alter its judgment.3

1 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b). 2 Johnson v. State, 234 A.2d 447, 448 (Del. 1967) (per curiam). 3 Hewett v. State, 2014 WL 5020251, at *1 (Del. Oct. 7, 2014) (“When, as here, a motion for reduction of sentence is filed within ninety days of sentencing, the Superior Court has broad discretion to decide whether to alter its judgment.”). “The reason for such a rule is to give a sentencing judge a second chance to consider

whether the initial sentence is appropriate.” 4

2. Defendant filed the instant Rule 35 Motion within this 90-day time

frame, as he was sentenced on January 24, 2025, 5 and his motion was filed on April

1, 2025.6 His motion is timely.

4. While timely, his motion is without merit. On October 14, 2024,

Halsey pled guilty to two charges of Robbery; one count of Robbery First Degree

and one lesser-included-offense of Robbery Second Degree. 7 While the plea

agreement requested a pre-sentence investigation and did not state there was an

agreement on sentencing, it did state that the State agreed to cap its Level V

recommendation at five (5) years.8 At the time Halsey pled, pursuant to Superior

Court Criminal Procedural Rule 11(c)(1), the Court addressed Halsey personally and

in open court and ultimately determined he understood the nature of the charges to

which the plea was offered, the mandatory minimum penalty provided by law, and

the maximum possible penalty provided by law. Accordingly, Halsey

4 State v. Reed, 2014 WL 7148921, at *2 (Del. Super. Dec. 16, 2014) (citing United States v. Ellenbogen, 390 F.2d 537, 541–43 (2d. Cir. 1968) (explaining the time limitation and purpose of then-existent sentence reduction provision of Fed. R. Crim. P. 35, the federal analogue to current Criminal Rule 35(b)). 5 State v. Timothy Halsey, Crim. I.D. No. 2312010152, Docket Item (“D.I.”) 10. 6 D.I. 11. 7 D.I. 9. 8 Id. 2 acknowledged in open court that the range of possible penalties included the

sentence that was to be requested by the State, which was ultimately imposed by the

Court in this case.

5. In considering the appropriate sentence to impose, the Court considered

the victim impact statements, the submissions of the State, arguments of defense

counsel and Halsey himself, a detailed pre-sentence investigation, Halsey’s criminal

history, SENTAC guidelines, and the statutory range of penalties for each offense

set by the legislature. The Court found the following SENTAC aggravators at the

time of sentencing: Prior Violent Criminal Activity, Repetitive Criminal Conduct,

Undue Depreciation of the Offense, Lack of Amenability to Lesser Sanctions and

Custody Status at the Time of the Offense. The following mitigators were also

found: Physical/Mental Impairment, Acceptance of Responsibility and Treatment

Needs Exceeds Need for Punishment. 9

7. Halsey was sentenced to twenty-five (25) years of Level V, suspended

after five (5) years, for ten (10) years of Level IV, suspended after six (6) months,

for eighteen (18) months at Level III probation for the offense of Robbery First

Degree. The first three years of that sentence are minimum mandatory pursuant to

11 Del. C. § 832. For the charge of Robbery Second Degree, Halsey was sentenced

9 D.I. 10. 3 to five (5) years of Level V, suspended immediately for eighteen (18) months

concurrent probation. 10 The sentence was imposed after full consideration of all the

above factors and the reasoning for those were placed upon the record.

8. Halsey now moves for modification and/or reduction of his sentence.

In his motion, he asks the Court to reduce his five (5) years of incarceration to three

(3) and seeks removal of the Level IV portion of his sentence. In support of this

request, he argues remorse, rehabilitation, family hardship, and his plans in pursuit

of higher education. 11 To the extent that Halsey argues points not previously

considered by the Court at the time of sentencing, nothing presented in his motion

justifies reducing his sentence.

8. While it is commendable that Halsey has successfully completed

programs available in prison, completion of programs while incarcerated and/or

good behavior in prison is not a basis to modify or reduce a sentence that was

appropriate at the time of sentencing. 12

10 Id. 11 D.I. 11. 12 State v. Liket, 2002 WL 31133101, at *2 (Del. Super. Sept. 25, 2002) (explaining that exemplary conduct or successful rehabilitation during incarceration does not qualify as “extraordinary circumstances” and relief for such achievements is more properly addressed to the parole board). See also United States v. LaMorte, 940 F. Supp. 572, 578 (S.D.N.Y. 1996); United States v. Arcaro, 1992 WL 73366, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 1, 1992) (concluding that “[w]hile defendant’s educational endeavors in prison and his diligent performance of prison job assignments are laudable accomplishments, they do not justify a reduction of his sentence.”). 4 9. The sentence is appropriate for all the reasons stated at the time of

sentencing. No additional information has been provided to the Court that would

warrant a reduction or modification of this sentence. Indeed, upon consideration of

Defendant’s Rule 35 Motion, the Court finds that the sentence imposed was well

within the statutory guidelines, as well as reasonable and just under the

circumstances presented.

10. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this Court finds that

Defendant has not demonstrated cause for the relief sought in the Rule 35 Motion.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Halsey’s Motion

for Modification and/or Reduction of Sentence is DENIED.

___________________________________ Danielle J. Brennan, Judge

Original to Prothonotary

cc: Timothy Halsey, SBI# 01026553 Brett Fallon, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General Investigative Services