State v. Lewis

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE, ) ) v. ) Case ID No.: 2108004986 ) LAWRENCE LEWIS, ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER

Submitted: August 1, 2023 Decided: November 13, 2023

AND NOW TO WIT, this 13th of November 2023, upon consideration of

Lawrence Lewis’ (“Defendant”) Motion for Modification of Sentence under

Superior Court Criminal Rule 35, the sentence imposed upon the Defendant, and the

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

1. On August 18, 2022, Defendant pled guilty to Possession of a Firearm

by a Person Prohibited (“PFBPP”) and Possession of Ammunition by a Person

Prohibited (“PABPP”). 1 That same day, Defendant was sentenced to a total of

fifteen years at Level V, suspended after five years (minimum mandatory) at Level

V, followed by eighteen months of supervision at Level III. 2

1 D.I. 23. 2 Id. 2. On August 29, 2022, Defendant filed a pro se Motion for Modification.3

On September 12, 2022, Defendant filed a second pro se Motion for Modification.4

On October 10, 2022, this Court denied both motions as Defendant is serving a

minimum mandatory sentence.5

3. Defendant again files under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b) and

asks this Court to “take a year off” of his Level V sentence.6 The basis for his request

is that he has engaged in programming and wishes to get home to be a father to his

daughter. 7 Again, this Court cannot grant his request.

4. Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b) provides no authority for a

reduction or suspension of the mandatory portion of a substantive statutory

minimum sentence. 8 Therefore, where Defendant is subject to a minimum

mandatory sentence, Defendant’s motion for modification of his Level V sentence

would necessarily need to be denied.

5. Further, “[t]he Court will not consider repetitive requests for reduction

of sentence.”9 A motion is considered repetitive when it “is preceded by an earlier

Rule 35(b) motion, even if the subsequent motion raises new arguments.”10 Here,

3 D.I. 25. 4 D.I. 26. 5 D.I. 29. 6 D.I. 31. at 2. 7 Id at 1. 8 State v. Sturgis, 947 A.2d 1087, 1092 (Del. 2008). 9 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b). 10 State v. Culp, 152 A.3d 141, 144 (Del. 2016). he raises no new arguments, except a desire to reduce his level V time, as previously

requested in his previously filed Rule 35(b) motions in September and October of

2022. 11 Thus, Defendant’s request is barred as repetitive. Rule 35 does not allow

the Court to use its discretion to ignore this bar. 12

6. Defendant’s Motion for Modification of Sentence is SUMMARILY

DISMISSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Vivian L. Medinilla Vivian L. Medinilla Judge

oc: Prothonotary cc: Christina Wroten, Deputy Attorney General Investigative Services Defendant

11 See Crim ID No. 2108004986, D.I. 25, 26. 12 Culp, 152 A.3d at 145 (reversing the Superior Court’s decision to grant the defendant’s motion for modification where the motion was repetitive and untimely).