State v. Smith

• Court: Superior Court of Delaware
• Decided: March 12, 2026
• Docket: 1103018874
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE, ) ) v. ) ID No. 1103018874 ) KENDALL SMITH, ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER

On this 12th day of March, 2026, upon consideration of Kendall Smith’s

(“Defendant”)1 pro se Motion to Modify Sentence (the “Motion”) made pursuant to

Superior Court Rule of Criminal Procedure (“Rule”) 35(b),2 the sentence imposed

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

1. On December 16, 2011, Defendant pled guilty to Murder in the Second

Degree.3 On March 16, 2012, the Court sentenced him to forty years of Level V

supervision, suspended after thirty years for six months of Level IV Supervision

(DOC Discretion), followed by two years of Level III supervision.4

2. Over the next thirteen years, Defendant filed a series of motions for

sentence modification or reduction pursuant to Rule 35(b), each of which was denied

or summarily dismissed by the Court. 5 On August 21, 2024, the Court summarily

1 Defendant is described elsewhere in the record as “Kendell Smith.” See e.g., D.I. 108. 2 D.I. 114. 3 D.I. 25. 4 D.I. 46. 5 See D.I. 49, 50, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112. dismissed the most recent of those motions because it was procedurally barred as

repetitive.6

3. On December 18, 2025, Defendant filed the instant Motion, in which

he requests that the Court reduce his remaining term at Level V by “suspending any

period that this Court finds appropriate under the circumstances.” 7 In support of this

sentence reduction, Defendant asserts that he has been the victim of unlawful force

by Department of Corrections Officers, that he has been rehabilitated during his term

of incarceration, and that a reduction is necessary for him to be a useful, law-abiding

citizen and to eliminate detriments to his mental health. Defendant labels each of

these grounds “extraordinary circumstances.”

4. The Court considers motions for modification of sentence under Rule

35(b). Before addressing the merits of a motion, the Court first considers the

applicable procedural bars.8

5. Rule 35(b) mandates that the Court will not consider repetitive requests

for sentence reduction. 9 A Rule 35(b) motion is considered repetitive even if the

later motion raises new arguments. 10 The bar to repetitive motions has no

exception.11

6 D.I. 113. 7 Motion at 1. 8 State v. Redden, 111 A.3d 602, 606 (Del. Super. 2015). 9 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b). 10 State v. Culp, 152 A.3d 141, 144 (Del. 2016). 11 Id. 2 6. Defendant has previously requested reduction or modification of his

sentence.12 As mandated by Rule 35(b), this Motion is repetitive, and it cannot be

considered by the Court. Hence, Defendant’s Motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Sheldon K. Rennie, Judge

Original to Prothonotary

Cc: Kendall Smith (SBI#00619570)

12 See, e.g., D.I. No. 113 (Order dated August 21, 2024, denying motion for modification as repetitive). 3