State v. Steele

• Court: Superior Court of Delaware
• Decided: January 2, 2024
• Docket: 2103014184
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE, ) ) v. ) ID No. 2103014184 ) FREDERICK STEELE, ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER

1. On this 2nd day of January, 2024, upon consideration of Defendant

Frederick Steele’s (“Defendant”) pro se Motion for Sentence Reduction made

pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b) (the “Motion”),1 the sentence

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

2. On October 10, 2022, Defendant pled guilty to Conspiracy in the Second

Degree.2 On the same day, the Court sentenced him to two years of Level V

supervision, followed by one year of Level III supervision. The Court imposed

conditions on Defendant’s sentence that require him to receive substance abuse and

mental health evaluations and to follow associated treatment recommendations.3

3. By January 30, 2023, Defendant had begun the Level III supervision

portion of his sentence. On April 11, 2023, the Delaware Department of Correction

1 D.I. 38. Defendant does not specifically cite to Rule 35(b) in the Motion, but he asks the Court to reduce the duration of his sentence. 2 D.I. 9. 3 D.I. 10. (“DOC”) recommended that Defendant be found in violation of probation. The DOC

stated that, during Level III supervision, Defendant had: (1) committed Criminal

Mischief, Possession of Burglar’s Tools, Burglary in the Third Degree, Conspiracy

in the Second Degree, and Criminal Trespass in the Third Degree; (2) tested positive

for cocaine; and (3) refused to participate in substance abuse treatment

programming.4

4. On May 9, 2023, the Court found that Defendant had violated the terms of

his probation and sentenced him to two years of Level V supervision, suspended

after nine months for one year of Level III supervision.5

5. On June 19, 2023, Defendant filed a motion for sentence reduction. There,

Defendant requested to be held at Level III supervision, rather than Level V

supervision, until his mental health evaluation concluded.6 On August 2, 2023, the

Court denied that motion for reasons stated on the record at Defendant’s July 30,

2023 sentence review hearing.7

4 D.I. 16. 5 D.I. 26. On June 12, 2023, the Court modified Defendant’s sentence to reflect that he should not participate in Treatment Access Center monitoring. D.I. 29. 6 D.I. 30. 7 D.I. 37.

2 6. On September 11, 2023, Defendant filed the instant Motion, in which he

asks this Court to reduce the Level V portion of his sentence and to order him to

continue to participate in the Assertive Community Treatment program.8

7. Rule 35(b) provides that the Court can “reduce a sentence of imprisonment

on a motion made within 90 days after the sentence is imposed.” 9 The Court only

has discretion to waive the ninety-day deadline when the defendant shows

“extraordinary circumstances.”10 Regardless, the Court does not consider “repetitive

requests for reduction of sentence.”11

8. Defendant’s Motion is procedurally barred as untimely. Defendant filed

the Motion more than ninety days after May 9, 2023, when the Court sentenced him

for violating the terms of his probation. After reviewing the Motion, sentence, and

record in this case, the Court finds no extraordinary circumstances that would justify

waiving the ninety-day filing deadline.

8 D.I. 38. In support of the Motion, Defendant cites to State v. Phillips, 2002 WL 524281 (Del. Super. Mar. 4, 2002), and Webb v. State, 2002 WL 31681587 (Del. July 25, 2002). These cases provide no discernible legal foundation for his request for sentence reduction. 9 Rule 35(b) also authorizes this Court to “reduce the . . . conditions of partial confinement or probation, at any time.” 10 State v. Lee, 2022 WL 17038153, at *1 (Del. Super. Nov. 15, 2022). 11 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b). Hence, a repetitive Rule 35(b) motion for sentence reduction is “procedurally barred from consideration.” State v. Smith, 2023 WL 4675502, at *1 (Del. Super. July 20, 2023).

3 9. Further, the Motion is procedurally barred as repetitive. Defendant

previously filed his first motion to reduce this sentence on June 19, 2023, which this

Court denied on August 2, 2023. Hence, Defendant’s Motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________________________ Sheldon K. Rennie, Judge

Original to Prothonotary

cc: Frederick Steele (SBI #00249097)