State v. Harmon

• Court: Superior Court of Delaware
• Decided: November 14, 2023
• Docket: 84000200DI
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE, ) ) v. ) ID No. 84000200DI ) DURWIN HARMON, ) ) Defendant. )

Date Submitted: October 9, 2023 Date Decided: November 14, 2023

ORDER

Upon consideration of Defendant Durwin Harmon’s (“Harmon”) Letter

Motion for Modification of Partial Confinement or Probation (“Motion”),1 Superior

Court Criminal Rule 35(b),2 statutory and decisional law, and the record in this case,

IT APPEARS THAT:

(1) On August 8, 1984, Harmon was found guilty by jury trial of First

Degree Kidnapping, First Degree Rape, First Degree Assault, First Degree Robbery,

Possession of a Deadly Weapon by a Person Prohibited, and three counts of

Possession of a Deadly Weapon during the Commission of a Felony. 3 Harmon was

sentenced to two life terms of imprisonment plus an additional twenty-four years.4

1 D.I. 112. Mr. Harmon submitted a letter to the Court asking for his GPS to be removed. While he did not explicitly move under Rule 35(b), the Court reviews his motion as such. 2 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b). 3 D.I. 13. 4 D.I. 19. Thirty-eight years of the sentence was mandatory.5 After serving 39 years, Harmon

was released from Level V incarceration.6

(2) In the instant Motion, Harmon requests the removal of his GPS monitor

requirement.7

(3) Rule 35(b) governs motions for modification or reduction of sentence.8

“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.” 9

Pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 4333, any probation or suspension of sentence may be

terminated at the Court’s discretion.10

(4) The authority of the court to grant relief under Rule 35(b) is

discretionary.11 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.”12

(5) In support of his Motion, Durwin cites hardships such as the inability

to go on vacation with his family, the inability to swim or take a bath, the monthly

5 Id. 6 D.I. 112. 7 Id. 8 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b). 9 State v. Baily, 2017 WL 8787504 at *1 (Del. Super. Ct. Oct. 3, 2017); State v. Redden, 111 A.3d 602, 609 (Del. Super. Ct. 2015). 10 Id. 11 Id. 12 State v. Redden, 111 A.3d 602, 609 (2015). 2 bill associated with the GPS monitor, and the requirement to attend a group session

every week in which he has to pay for a lie detector test.13 The Court does not find

these “hardships” warrant modification.

(6) The sentence is appropriate for all the reasons stated at sentencing.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Durwin Harmon’s

Motion for Modification of Partial Confinement or Probation is DENIED.

/s/ Jan R. Jurden President Judge

cc: Original to Prothonotary Abigail E. Rodgers, Esq. Durwin Harmon

13 D.I. 112. 3