State v. Vickery

• Court: Superior Court of Delaware
• Decided: May 27, 2026
• Docket: 2504006468
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE, ) ) v. ) ID No. 2504006468 ) KAYLA VICKERY, ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER

On this 27th day of May, 2026, upon consideration of Kayla Vickery’s

(“Defendant”) pro se Motion for Sentence Modification (the “Motion”) made

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

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

1. On December 9, 2025, Defendant was found in violation of her

probation. 2

2. The Court sentenced Defendant to one year of Level V time, suspended

for one year at Level IV treatment, DOC discretion, suspended after completion of

DOC discretion for one year at Level III.3

3. On February 20, 2026, Defendant filed the instant Motion requesting

that the Court reduce her sentence to ninety days and then to hold at Level IV for

1 Docket Item (hereinafter “D.I.”) 12 (hereinafter “Mot.”). 2 Sentence Order (D.I. 11.). 3 Id. inpatient treatment at Banyan Treatment Center.4 The basis for this request is

Defendant’s acceptance of her substance use problem, compliance with the Road to

Recovery program and other classes, and the negative effect that treatment at the

Hazel D. Plant Women’s Treatment Facility is having on her mental health. 5

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. 6 There are no applicable procedural bars, and thus the

Court considers the Motion on the merits.

5. The Motion is denied. Defendant’s sentence was appropriate at the time

of sentencing. Indeed, the duration of the sentence is integral to the Court’s overall

“sentencing scheme” or “plan.”7 The Court imposed the sentence—including these

express elements—after a thorough review of the crimes committed and the

sentencing information available on the record. In addition, Defendant’s Level IV

program assignments are left to the Department of Correction’s determination, and

the Court will not micro-manage the Department. 8 Although the Court applauds

4 Mot. p. 2. 5 Id. 6 State v. Redden, 111 A.3d 602, 606 (Del. Super. 2015). 7 Id. at 609. 8 See State v. Bolling, 2021 WL 2408426, at *4 (Del. Super. Jun. 14, 2021) (denying request to modify Level IV placement because “[the defendant’s] placement and program assignment for completion of his Level IV term is a matter the Court has left to the [Department of Correction] to determine given his circumstances when he has finished the Level V portion of his sentence.”). 2 Defendant’s efforts to fully engage with her rehabilitative program, it does not

provide a valid basis to modify or amend her sentence.

6. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Sentence Reduction is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Sheldon K. Rennie, Judge