State v. Rollins

• Court: Superior Court of Delaware
• Decided: July 17, 2024
• Docket: 1212010904
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE, ) ) v. ) ID No. 1212010904 ) DUANE L. ROLLINS, ) ) Defendant. )

Date Submitted: June 25, 2024 Date Decided: July 17, 2024

ORDER

Upon consideration of Defendant’s Motion For Sentence Modification

(“Motion”) 1, Superior Court Criminal Rule 35, statutory and decisional law, and the

record in this case, IT APPEARS THAT:

1. On September 4, 2013, Defendant pled guilty to two counts of

Strangulation.2 As part of the plea agreement, the State indicated that it would seek

to declare Defendant a habitual offender under 11 Del. C. §4214(a) on a second

Count of Strangulation, but would waive proceeding against Rollins as a habitual

offender on the first Count of Strangulation.3 At sentencing, the Court declared

Defendant a habitual offender as to the second Count of Strangulation, and sentenced

1 D.I. 100. 2 D.I. 33; 11 Del. C. § 607. 3 See Rollins v. State, 2015 WL 5032041, at *1 (Del. Aug. 25, 2015). him to fifteen years at Level V as to the second Count, and five years Level V as to

the first count.4

2. Defendant appealed his sentence to the Delaware Supreme Court. 5 On

appeal, Defendant argued that the Court, his trial counsel, and the prosecutor

mistakenly characterized Strangulation as a violent offense under 11 Del. C. §

4203(c), and improperly required a minimum mandatory sentence of five years at

Level V supervision. 6 The Supreme Court agreed and remanded for resentencing.7

3. On June 10, 2014, Defendant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea,

arguing that his plea was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary because of the

mistaken belief that Strangulation was a violent offense.8 On July 31, 2014,

Defendant filed a pro se motion to dismiss his trial counsel and for appointment of

new counsel. 9 Defendant’s trial counsel filed a motion to withdraw on August 7,

2014. 10 On August 22, 2014, the Court denied all pending motions. 11

4. Defendant was resentenced on January 16, 2015. 12 The Court declared

Defendant a habitual offender regarding the second count of Strangulation, and

4 D.I. 39. 5 D.I. 41. 6 Rollins v. State, 2015 WL 5032041, at *1 (Del. Aug. 25, 2015). 7 Id. 8 D.I. 51. 9 D.I. 54. 10 D.I. 55. 11 D.I. 56. 12 D.I. 62. 2 resentenced him to ten years, rather than fifteen years, at Level V.13 Defendant

appealed the denial of trial counsel’s motion to withdraw, and his sentence, to the

Delaware Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court affirmed the Court’s ruling14

5. On August 25, 2021 Defendant filed a Motion to Modify his Sentence.15

On November 3, 2021, this Court Denied the Motion.16

6. One June 24, 2024 Defendant filed the instant motion to modify his

sentence. In this motion defendant seeks to eliminate the condition of completing a

certified domestic violence course. Defendant also seeks to be discharged from

probation

7. Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b) provides that the Court “many

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

sentence is imposed.” 17 Under Rule 35(b), the Court may consider reducing or

modifying the term or conditions of partial confinement or probation at any time.

Rule 35(b), however, further provides that the Court “will not consider repetitive

requests for reduction of sentence.” 18

13 Id. 14 Rollins, 2015 WL 5032041, at *4. 15 D.I. 100. 16 D.I. 101. 17 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b). 18 Id. (Emphasis added).

3 8. This is Rollins’ second motion under Rule 35(b) for modification of his

sentence. The motion is repetitive and is DENIED.19

9. Even if the merits of the Second Motion were addressed, Defendant

provides no additional information that would warrant a reduction or modification

of this sentence. The certified Domestic Violence Course is available in the

community and can be completed while the defendant is at Level III. Given the

crimes to which the defendant pled guilty completion of the certified Domestic

Violence Course is appropriate. Additionally, it is not appropriate to discharge

probation.

Accordingly, the Court will exercise its discretion under Rule 35(b) 20 and

DENY Mr. Rollins’ Second Motion for Modification.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 17th day of July, 2024.

/s/ Francis J. Jones, Jr. Francis J. Jones, Jr., Judge Encl. Original to Prothonotary cc: Zoe M. Plerhoples, Deputy Attorney General Mr. Duane Rollins, SBI 00286395

19 State v. Burton, 2020 WL 63057888, at *2 (Del. Super., June 5, 2020) (the bar to considering repetitive motions has no exceptions). See Jenkins v. State, 954 A.2d 910, 2008 WL 2721536, at *1 (Del. 2008) (TABLE) (affirming the Superior Court’s denial of Defendant’s Rule 35(b) motion for modification where Rule 25(b) “prohibits the filing of repetitive sentence reduction motions.”); Morris v. State, 846 A.2d 238, 2004 WL 716773, at *2 (Del. 2004) (TABLE) (finding that Defendant’s Rule 35(b) motion for modification was repetitive, which also precluded its consideration by the Superior Court.”). 20 Rondon v. State, 2008 WL 187964, at *1 (Del. Jan. 15, 2008) (“The merit of a sentence modification under Rule 35(b) is directed to the sound discretion of the Superior Court.”). 4