State v. Suder

• Court: Superior Court of Delaware
• Decided: March 21, 2024
• Docket: 1901005656
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE, ) ) v. ) ID No. 1901005656 ) SHA’MIR SUDER, ) ) Defendant. ) )

Date Submitted: February 25, 2024 Date Decided: March 21, 2024

ORDER

Upon consideration of Defendant Sha’mir Suder’s (“Suder”) Motion for

Sentence Modification (“Motion”),1 Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b), statutory

and decisional law, and the record, IT APPEARS THAT:

(1) On July 22, 2019, Suder pled guilty to Assault First Degree (IN19-08-

0087-W) and Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony

(“PFDCF”) (IN19-02-0088-W).2 On November 8, 2019, Suder was sentenced as

follows: for Assault First Degree, 25 years at Level V, suspended after 2 years at

Level V for 6 months at Level IV, followed by 18 months at Level III; for PFDCF,

10 years at Level V.3

1 D.I. 42. Although Suder states that his letter is to let the Court know he is “putting in a commutation,” his letter requests a sentence modification. 2 D.I. 20. 3 D.I. 34. 1 (2) Suder filed the instant Motion on February 28, 2024.4 Suder claims he

has completed the minimum mandatory portion of his sentence, and he asks the

Court to discharge the remaining time on his sentence for probation.5 In support of

his Motion, Suder states he has learned from his prior actions and is no longer

involved in gang activity.6

(3) Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b) governs motions for modification

of sentence.7 The purpose of Rule 35(b) is to “provide a reasonable period for the

Court to consider alteration of its sentencing judgments.”8 Rule 35(b) contains

procedural bars for timeliness and repetitiveness.9 Under Rule 35(b), the “[C]ourt

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

sentence was imposed” and will consider untimely motions “only in extraordinary

circumstances or pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 4217.”10 Furthermore, the Court cannot

modify the minimum mandatory portion of a sentence.11

(4) Suder’s Motion is procedurally barred. His Motion is untimely since it

was filed over four years after his sentencing—well past the 90-day deadline.12 The

4 D.I. 42. 5 D.I. 42. 6 Id. 7 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b). 8 State v. Remedio, 108 A.3d 326, 331 (Del. Super. 2014). 9 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b). 10 Id. 11 11 Del. C. § 4204(d); D.I. 27. 12 D.I. 27. Suder’s sentence does not fall under 11 Del. C. § 4217. 2 Court does not find any “extraordinary circumstances” exist to warrant an extension

of the 90-day deadline.13 Therefore, the Court finds the sentence is appropriate for

all the reasons stated at the time of sentencing.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Sha’mir Suder’s

Motion for Sentence Modification is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Jan R. Jurden Jan R. Jurden, President Judge

cc: Original to Prothonotary Erika R. Flaschner, DAG Sha’mir Suder (SBI # 00795035)

13 See State v. Redden, 111 A.3d 602, 607 (Del. Super. 2015) (explaining that extraordinary circumstances must specifically justify the delay, be beyond the movant’s control, and be the reason the movant was prevented from timely filing) (emphasis added). 3