State v. Nowlin

• Court: Superior Court of Delaware
• Decided: August 30, 2023
• Docket: 2202003865
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE, ) ) v. ) ID No. 2202003865 ) WILLIAM NOWLIN, ) ) Defendant. )

Date Submitted: July 12, 2023 Date Decided: August 30, 2023

ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF SENTENCE

On this 30th day of August, 2023, upon consideration of Defendant, William

Nowlin’s (“Defendant”) Motion for Sentence Modification (the “Motion”),1 the

sentence imposed upon Defendant, and the record in this case, it appears to the Court

that:

1. On March 13, 2023, Defendant pled guilty to the charges of Unlawful

Sexual Contact in the Third Degree.2 A pre-sentence investigation was Ordered and

on June 2, 2023, Defendant was sentenced to one (1) year at Level V, suspended for

one (1) year at Level III, GPS monitoring, with a hold at Level V until a GPS is

available.3 As special conditions of Defendant’s probation, he was Ordered to have

no contact with any minor under the age of eighteen (18) years of age, be evaluated

1 D.I. 13. 2 D.I. 11. 3 D.I. 18. for substance abuse and follow any and all recommended treatment, undergo a

mental health evaluation and follow any and all recommended treatment and to

register as a Tier 1 sex offender pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 4121(d)(3). Additionally,

Defendant was Ordered to have no contact with his minor victim, the family of his

minor victim, or the school of his minor victim. Defendant was Ordered to be

evaluated by Department of Corrections (“DOC”) for sex offender treatment

programs while at Level III supervision and must be enrolled in all evaluations

within the first six (6) months of his probation.

2. On June 9, 2023, Defendant filed the instant letter motion for modification

of sentence, requesting the Court remove the GPS monitoring requirement, as his

employment with Amtrak requires him to travel out of state and that is not permitted

while under GPS supervision.4 The State filed opposition, stating that no

documentation has been provided by Defendant showing such employment is in

jeopardy.5 In response, Defendant has submitted one document from a Lenny W.

Buchanan, Vice-Chairman of the United Passenger Rail Federation MNWED-

I.B.T., which appears to be a Union of which Defendant is a member.6 Mr.

Buchanan is neither an employee of Amtrak, so far as the Court can tell, nor is he

Defendant’s supervisor, however, the letter states that Defendant’s employment

4 D.I. 13. 5 D.I. 15. 6 D.I. 16. 2 requires out of state travel, sometimes at little notice to Defendant. Defendant

himself, while represented by counsel, initially submitted this letter directly to the

Court, ex parte, via electronic mail and without a copy to defense counsel. Defense

counsel and the State was immediately informed of the Defendant’s action and

resubmitted the Buchanan letter in the proper format.7

3. The Court once again received ex parte electronic mail communication in

this case from a Shanice Nowlin, who purports to be Defendant’s daughter. This

letter, electronically sent on July 11, 2023, also failed to copy even defense counsel

and sought to provide character support for Defendant with respect to the instant

request for modification of sentence. The Court, yet again, immediately alerted the

State and defense counsel of this contact and gave Defendant the opportunity –

through counsel – to resubmit this letter in the appropriate fashion. Defense counsel

did so, and re-submitted this letter, along with numerous other character letters in

support of Defendant’s instant request in proper letter form, on July 12, 2023.8

4. Under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b), “the court may reduce a

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

imposed. This period shall not be interrupted or extended by an appeal, except that

a motion may be made within 90 days of the imposition of sentence after remand for

7 D.I. 17. 8 D.I. 19. 3 a new trial or for resentencing. The court may decide the motion or defer decision

while an appeal is pending. Further, the Court may decide the motion without

presentation or formal hearing.”9

5. Being as this is Defendant’s first motion to modify his sentence, and it

was filed within ninety (90) days of his sentencing, the motion is timely and will be

considered on its merits.10

6. Although timely, the motion is still without merit. The sentence imposed

by the Court was done so after thoughtful consideration of all parties and all

materials presented at the sentencing hearing. The Court had the benefit of the full

pre-sentence investigation ordered prior to sentencing. All potential SENTAC

aggravators and mitigators were considered in the deliberation of the sentence11 and

the Court crafted a sentence which balanced the offense committed by the Defendant

and the necessary conditions to sufficiently protect both the minor victim and

society. While the Court was aware of Defendant’s employment, it was unaware of

any potential for employment issues the GPS monitoring may pose. However, this

fact does not change the Court’s consideration of the conditions.

9 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b). 10 Superior Court Criminal R. 35. 11 The following SENTAC aggravators were found: Undue Depreciation of Offense, Lack of Remorse and Offense Against a Child; The SENTAC mitigator of no prior criminal history was also found. 4 7. Defendant previously pled guilty and was aware that the Court had the

legal authority to sentence him within the bounds of the law, including up to one full

year of incarceration. At that time and pursuant to Criminal Procedural Rule

11(c)(1), the Court addressed Defendant in open court and determined that

Defendant understood the nature of the charge to which the plea was offered and the

potential penalty provided by law. Accordingly, Defendant acknowledged in open

court that the range of possible penalties included any lawful sentence that can be

imposed by the Court.12

8. The specific facts that constituted Defendant’s crime of Unlawful

Sexual Contact Third Degree here were, and still are, alarming and concerning to

the Court. The Defendant, who was in a position of trust, committed a criminal

sexual act against his twelve (12) year old victim. Even more concerning, at the time

of the pre-sentence investigation and at sentencing, Defendant attempted to place

blame on his minor victim. The victim, unfortunately, is not in a position where s/he

has the support and protection of family members, thus the Court structured this

sentence accordingly for specific reasons. The letter from the Union Representative

and the letters of support of Defendant’s character received do not overcome the

careful considerations of the Court that were within its legal authority.

12 D.I. 11. 5 8. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Modification of Sentence is

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

____________________________ Danielle J. Brennan, Judge

Original to Prothonotary Cc: James Turner, Esquire, Office of Defense Services Diana Dunn, Esquire, Department of Justice Investigative Services