State v. Roane

• Court: Superior Court of Delaware
• Decided: March 18, 2026
• Docket: 2311013202 & 2409006539
• Status: Published

Opinion

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE ) ) v. ) I.D. 2311013202 & ) 2409006539 TYEEM ROANE, ) ) Defendant. )

Date Submitted: February 25, 2026 Date Decided: March 18, 2026

ORDER DENYING TYEEM ROANE’S MOTION FOR REDUCTION/MODIFICATION OF SENTENCE

Upon consideration of the Motion for Reduction/Modification of Sentence

filed by Roane, the State’s opposition, the character letters submitted in support of a

modification, Superior Court Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b), statutory and

decisional law, and the entire record in this case, it appears to the Court that:

1. On November 14, 2024, Defendant Tyeem Roane (hereinafter “Roane”

or “Defendant”) was convicted by a jury of one count Drug Possession (cocaine),

two counts of Illegal Possession of a Controlled Substance (Fentanyl & Oxycodone)

and one count of Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. Roane was acquitted of two

counts of Drug Dealing in Case No. 2311013202. 1 On June 16, 2025, Roane pled 0F

guilty in Case No. 2409006539 to two counts of Possessing a Controlled Substance. 2 1F

1 State v. Tyeem Roane, Crim. Act. No. 2311013202 Docket Item (hereinafter “D.I.”) 22. 2 State v. Tyeem Roane, Crim. Act. No. 2409006539 D.I. 23. Sentencing in both cases occurred on October 1, 2025. 3 At that time, Roane was 2F

sentenced as follows:

IN25-02-0112 Possession of a Controlled Substance: 20 years at Level V suspended after 3 years, for decreasing levels of probation

IN 25-02-0111 – Possession of a Controlled Substance: 3 years at Level V suspended after 1 year, for 18 months of Level III probation

IN24-02-0112 Possession of a Controlled Substance: 1 year at Level V with no probation to follow

IN24-01-0357 – Possession of a Controlled Substance: 6 months at Level V suspended for 1 year of concurrent Level III probation

IN24-01-0359 – Possession of Drug Paraphernalia - $100 fine. 43F

2. On December 31, 2025, counsel for Roane wrote to the Court

requesting leave to submit additional character letters on behalf of Roane in hopes

of reducing his sentence. Roane asks for one year at Level V to be removed from

his sentence. 5 4F

3. The Court granted multiple extensions to defense in submitting the

requested character letters. Upon review of these letters, the Court has learned

nothing that would have changed the outcome of the sentencing hearing, had these

been provided to the Court at that time.

3 D.I. 26-27 (2409006539); D.I. 24-25 (2311013202). 4 Id. 5 D.I. 26 (2311013202), D.I. 28 (2409006539). 2 4. Pursuant to Criminal Rule 35(b), the Court may reduce a sentence of

imprisonment on a motion made within 90 days after the sentence is imposed. 6 The 5F

intent of Criminal Rule 35(b) has historically been to provide a reasonable period

for the Court to consider alteration of its sentencing judgments. 7 Where a motion 6F

for reduction of sentence is filed, under Criminal Rule 35(b), within 90 days of

sentencing, the Court has broad discretion to decide if it should alter its judgment. 8 7F

“The reason for such a rule is to give a sentencing judge a second chance to consider

whether the initial sentence is appropriate.” 9 Roane’s submissions are timely. 8F

5. A portion of the sentence in this case was imposed pursuant to a Plea

Agreement between the State and Roane and signed by Roane himself. Pursuant to

Superior Court Criminal Procedural Rule 11(c)(1), the Court addressed Roane

personally in open court and determined that he understood the nature of the charges

to which the plea was offered, the mandatory minimum penalty provided by law, if

any, and the maximum possible penalty provided by law. Accordingly, Defendant

6 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b). 7 Johnson v. State, 234 A.2d 447, 448 (Del. 1967) (per curiam). 8 Hewett v. State, 2014 WL 5020251, at *1 (Del. Oct. 7, 2014) (“When, as here, a motion for reduction of sentence is filed within ninety days of sentencing, the Superior Court has broad discretion to decide whether to alter its judgment.”). 9 State v. Reed, 2014 WL 7148921, at *2 (Del. Super. Dec. 16, 2014) (citing United States v. Ellenbogen, 390 F.2d 537, 541–43 (2d. Cir. 1968) (explaining the time limitation and purpose of then-existent sentence reduction provision of Fed. R. Crim. P. 35, the federal analogue to current Criminal Rule 35(b)). 3 acknowledged in open court that the range of possible penalties included the

sentence that was imposed by the Court in this case.

6. Following the detailed pre-sentence investigation, the Court considered

the submissions and argument of both the State and defense, Roane’s criminal

history and custody status at the time of these offenses, his family history, and the

statutory range of penalties for each offense set by the legislature.

7. After careful review, it is clear that the sentence imposed is appropriate

for all the reasons stated at the time of sentencing. No additional information has

been provided to the Court that would warrant a reduction or modification of this

sentence. Indeed, upon consideration of Roane’s Rule 35 Motion, the Court finds

that the sentence imposed was well within the statutory guidelines, as well as

reasonable and just under the circumstances presented.

8. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this Court finds that Roane

has not demonstrated cause for the relief sought in his Rule 35 Motion.

[CONTINUED TO NEXT PAGE]

4 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Roane’s Motion

for Reduction/Modification of Sentence is DENIED.

___________________________________ The Honorable Danielle J. Brennan

Original to Prothonotary

cc: James Turner, Esquire Beth Savitz, Esquire Investigative Services