State v. Lloyd

• Court: Superior Court of Delaware
• Decided: May 7, 2025
• Docket: 1710006739
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE, ) ) v. ) ID No: 1710006739 ) ERIC LLOYD, ) ) Defendant. )

Submitted: April 29, 2025 Decided: May 7, 2025

ORDER

Upon Consideration of Defendant’s Motion for Sentence Reduction GRANTED in part / DENIED in part

1. Defendant, Eric Lloyd, filed the instant Motion for Sentence Reduction on

April 23, 2025.1 Defendant asks the Court to reduce his sentence citing his

good behavior while in prison, the number of programs he has completed

while incarcerated, and the fact that he has both a job and a place to live upon

his release.2

2. Defendant pled guilty to Criminal Racketeering, Two Counts of Conspiracy

in the Second Degree; Money Laundering; and Attempting to Defeat Taxes.3

Defendant was sentenced on February 21, 2025 to an Aggravate of 10 years

at Level V followed by decreasing levels of probation. Defendant seeks a

1 Docket Item (“D.I.”) 229. 2 Id. 3 D.I. 228. modification to suspend the remainder of his Level V time for two years at

Level III or suspend the remainder of his Level V time for 6 months Level IV

(house arrest) followed by two years at Level III.4

3. Under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b), “[t]he court may reduce a sentence

of imprisonment on a motion made within 90 days after the sentence is

imposed.”5 If the motion is filed later than 90 days after imposition of the

sentence, the Court will only consider the motion “in extraordinary

circumstances.”6 The Court may consider a sentence reduction motion

“without presentation, hearing, or argument.”7

4. Defendant’s sentence was imposed on February 21, 2025, and Defendant filed

the instant Motion on April 23, 2025. Therefore, Defendant complies with

the 90-day filing period required by Rule 35(b).

5. After reviewing Defendant’s Motion, the entire record of the case, and all

sentencing information provided, this Court does not find a sentence

modification is appropriate. Virtually all of the reasons offered by the

Defendant in support of his motions were considered by the Court in

formulating the original sentence Defendant seeks to modify.

4 Id. 5 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b). 6 Id. 7 Id. 6. Defendant has requested that he be allowed to participate in Reentry Court

which the Court will GRANT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Francis J. Jones, Jr. Francis J. Jones, Jr., Judge

cc: Original to Prothonotary James McCloskey, Deputy Attorney General Eric Lloyd, JTVCC, SBI 00284809