State v. Jerido

• Court: Superior Court of Delaware
• Decided: August 21, 2024
• Docket: 2209011322
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE, ) ) v. ) ID No. 2209011322 ) ANTHONY JERIDO, ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER

On this 21st day of August, 2024, upon consideration of Anthony Jerido’s

(“Defendant”) pro se Motion for Sentence Modification (the “Motion”) made

pursuant to Superior Court Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b),1 the sentence imposed

upon Defendant, and the record in this case, it appears to the Court that:

1. On April 26, 2023, Defendant pled guilty to Robbery in the Second

Degree.2 On May 10, 2023, the Court sentenced him to five years of Level V

supervision, suspended after one year for eighteen months of Level III supervision.

2. On March 15, 2024, the Delaware Department of Correction (the “DOC”)

filed a violation of probation report (“VOP report”) which stated that Defendant had

violated the terms of his probation by (1) failing to report to his probation officer as

1 D.I. 11. Defendant sent a letter to this Court, which the Court interprets as the Motion. He does not specifically cite to Rule 35(b) in the Motion, but he asks this Court to modify the terms of his sentence. 2 D.I. 4. directed on February 26, 2024, and March 4, 2024, and (2) testing positive for

nonprescribed controlled substances on March 11, 2024. On April 2, 2024, based

on the DOC’s VOP report, the Court found that Defendant had violated the terms of

his probation and sentenced him to four years of Level V supervision, suspended for

successful completion of Level IV substance abuse treatment, followed by one year

of Level III outpatient treatment. The sentence order does not mandate a particular

facility for Defendant’s periods of Level IV and Level III treatment.

3. On May 13, 2024, Defendant filed the instant Motion, in which he asks the

Court to modify his sentence to be served at the Banyan Treatment Center in

Millsboro, Delaware. 3 In support, he asserts that the Community Corrections

Treatment Center program is stressful for him and is not preparing him to maintain

sobriety.4

4. Rule 35(b) authorizes this Court to “reduce the fine or term or conditions

of partial confinement or probation, at any time.” A motion to modify the terms of

partial confinement or probation is not subject to the ninety-day limitation that

applies to a motion for sentence reduction.5 But the Court does not consider

3 D.I. 11. 4 Id. 5 State v. Harmon, 2023 WL 7599111, at *1 (Del. Super. Nov. 14, 2023) (quoting State v. Bailey, 2017 WL 8787504, at *1 (Del. Super. Oct. 3, 2017)).

2 repetitive motions for sentence modification. 6 Defendant’s Motion is his first

motion for sentence modification in this case, so it is non-repetitive.

5. With this procedural requirement satisfied, Defendant bears the burden to

show just cause to modify his sentence.7 He has failed to satisfy that burden. In

Delaware, courts are “generally very reluctant to interfere with the administration of

prisons.”8 The administration of the State prison system falls “within the auspices

of the Executive branch of our State government.”9 And “[i]nmates do not have a

right to a particular prison classification.”10 The Court often takes a similar approach

to criminal defendants’ placement in Level IV rehabilitative and treatment programs.

It is “wholly appropriate for the Court to leave such Level V (and Level IV)

classification and placement decisions to the Department of Correction.”11

6 Gladden v. State, 2020 WL 773290, at *2 (Del. Feb. 17, 2020) (affirming denial of second motion for sentence modification for repetitiveness). 7 State v. Garvin, 2022 WL 3081440, at *2 (Del. Super. Aug. 3, 2022) (quoting State v. Joseph, 2018 WL 1895697, at *1 (Del. Super. Apr. 11, 2018)) (“The burden is upon the movant to establish cause to modify a lawfully imposed sentence.”). 8 State v. Goodman, 2010 WL 547394, at *2 (Del. Super. Feb. 9, 2010) (quoting Riley v. Taylor, 1999 WL 41279, at *3 (Del. Super. Jan. 6, 1999)). 9 Id. Placement within the prison system is traditionally “the business of prison administrators, rather than of the courts.” Samans v. Dep’t Corr., 2015 WL 1421411, at *2 (Del. Mar. 27, 2015) (quoting Bagwell v. Prince, 1996 WL 470723, at *2 (Del. Aug. 9, 1996)). 10 Samans, 2015 WL 1421411, at *2. 11 State v. Davis, 2021 WL 2433135, at *3 (Del. Super. June 15, 2021).

3 Defendant’s Motion fails to present just cause for the Court to require that Defendant

be treated at the specific facility he has requested.

6. After reviewing the Motion, sentence, and record in this case, the Court

finds no just cause for sentence modification. Defendant’s sentence is appropriate

for all the reasons stated at the time of sentencing. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion

is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

_____________________ ________ Sheldon K. Rennie, Judge