State v. Hurd
This text of State v. Hurd (State v. Hurd) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
STATE OF DELAWARE ) ) v. ) ) I.D. Nos. 1306004240 ) 1312017698 CHARLES HURD, ) ) Defendant. )
ORDER
Submitted: February 15, 2023 Decided: May 8, 2023
AND NOW TO WIT, this 8th day of May 2023, upon consideration of
Charles Hurd (“Defendant”)’s Motion for Modification of Sentence under Rule 35,
the sentence imposed upon the Defendant, and the record in this case, it appears
to the Court that:
1. On June 10, 2014, Defendant pled guilty to five counts of Dealing in
Child Pornography and one count of Unlawful Sexual Contact Second Degree
(USC2).1 For each count of the former, Defendant was sentenced to eight years at
Level V, suspended after three, for transitioning levels of probation, including six
months of Level IV. For USC2, he received three years at Level V, suspended after
two, also followed by transitioning levels of probation.2 Defendant is also prohibited
1 Crim. I.D. 1306004240, D.I. 32. 2 Crim. I.D. 1306004240, D.I. 38. from accessing the Internet through any digital device.3
2. On February 10, 2023, Defendant filed this motion to modify his Level
IV sentence to Level III probation,4 to make his employment searches “easier”
because his Level IV placement requires internet access to conduct such searches.5
3. Although Rule 35 permits the Court to consider a modification of his
Level IV sentence,6 his request is denied. Defendant entered into a Plea Agreement,7
wherein he fully acknowledged the range of possible penalties to include Level IV
placement, and the condition to include no access to the Internet;8 the former to
ensure Defendant transitions smoothly from prison, and the latter due to the nature
of his offenses. The sentence remains appropriate for all the reasons stated at the
time of sentencing.
IT IS SO ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion is DENIED.
/s/ Vivian L. Medinilla Vivian L. Medinilla Judge oc: Prothonotary cc: Defendant Department of Justice Investigative Services Office
3 Crim. I.D. 1306004240, D.I. 38. 4 Crim. I.D. 1306004240, D.I. 40. 5 Id. 6 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b) (providing that the Court may reduce the “term or conditions of partial confinement or probation, at any time”). 7 Crim. I.D. 1306004240, D.I. 32. 8 See id. 2
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
State v. Hurd, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hurd-delsuperct-2023.