State v. Warrington

• Court: Superior Court of Delaware
• Decided: June 10, 2024
• Docket: 2309012789
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE, ) ) ) v. ) I.D. # 2309012789 ) LEE D. WARRINGTON, ) ) Defendant. )

Date Submitted: April 21, 2024 Date Decided: June 10, 2024

ORDER DENYING LEE D. WARRINGTON’S MOTION FOR MODIFICATION

Having considered Lee D. Warrington’s (“Warrington”) Motion for

Modification (the “Motion”), for the following reasons, the Motion is DENIED.

1. On January 25, 2024, Warrington pleaded guilty to one count of

Possession of a Controlled Substance and one count of Resisting Arrest. He was

immediately sentenced, consistent with the sentencing recommendation in the Plea

Agreement, as follows: (1) for Possession of a Controlled Substance, five years at

Level V, suspended after successful completion of the Road to Recovery program,

followed by six months at Level IV home confinement, followed by one year at

Level III; and (2) for Resisting Arrest, two years at Level V, suspended for one year

at Level III.1

1 D.I. 5. 2. On April 21, 2024, Warrington filed the Motion, seeking to eliminate

the Level IV portion of his sentence and instead, permit him to serve six months at

Level III on GPS, followed by one year at Level III with no GPS.2 Warrington

argues that Level III GPS monitoring will allow him to secure sober-living housing

after he is released, enable him to pursue a welding certificate from Del-Tech while

working full-time, and enable him to attend rehabilitation programs, all of which

will be hindered if he is required to serve Level IV home confinement.

3. Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b) provides that the Court “may

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

sentence is imposed.” The Court may consider reducing the term or conditions of

partial confinement or probation at any time.3

4. Rule 35(b) places the burden of proof on “the movant to establish cause

to modify a lawfully imposed sentence.”4 While the rule does not set forth specific

criteria which must be met to sustain this burden of proof, “‘common sense dictates

that the Court may modify a sentence if present circumstances indicate that the

previously imposed sentence is no longer appropriate.’”5 The determination of

whether to modify a sentence is left to the sound discretion of the Court.6

2 D.I. 6. 3 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b). 4 State v. Evans, 2024 WL 36518, at *2 (Del. Super. Jan. 3, 2024). 5 Id. (citing State v. Bailey, 2017 WL 8787504, at *1 (Del. Super. Oct. 3, 2017)). 6 State v. Garfield, 2023 WL 8234371, at *2 (Del. Super. Nov. 28, 2023).

2 5. This is Warrington’s first motion for a sentence modification, and it

seeks modification of the portion of his sentence that requires partial confinement.

Thus, there are no procedural bars to the Motion.

6. The Court imposed a sentence to which Warrington agreed in the Plea

Agreement. At the time of sentencing, six months on home confinement was an

integral part of the sentence. While the Court commends Warrington for desiring to

seek employment, counseling, and further assistance upon his release from Level V,

he has provided no basis for the Court to modify his sentence.

7. The Court finds that Warrington’s sentences continue to be

appropriate. Accordingly, the Court exercises its discretion and DENIES the

Motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

June 10, 2024

/s/Kathleen M. Miller Judge Kathleen M. Miller