State of Delaware v. Redden.
111 A.3d 602
| Del. Super. Ct. | 2015Background
- In January 2011 police stopped Darrell T. Redden, found cash and a scale, later discovered cocaine residue in trash and a loaded handgun at his home; Redden pleaded guilty to Possession of Ammunition by a Person Prohibited and Maintaining a Vehicle for Keeping a Controlled Substance.
- On June 6, 2011 Redden was sentenced: an eight-year Level V term (with suspensions to Levels IV/III as detailed) and a concurrent three-year Level V sentence for the maintaining charge.
- Redden filed a timely Rule 35(b) motion in April 2012 seeking reduction; the court denied it as time-barred (filed after 90 days), finding no extraordinary circumstances and that the sentence was appropriate.
- In August 2014 Redden (now with counsel) filed a second Rule 35(b) motion seeking reduction or suspension of the Level V time, Key program placement, and redesignation of Level IV to home confinement.
- The court reviewed procedural bars and merits: (1) Rule 35(b) requires reduction-of-imprisonment motions within 90 days unless "extraordinary circumstances" exist, and (2) Rule 35(b) flatly prohibits repetitive reduction motions; modification of partial confinement can be considered at any time.
- The court denied relief: Redden's request to reduce imprisonment was procedurally barred (untimely and repetitive); his request to change Level IV to home confinement was denied on the merits, leaving DOC discretion for Level IV placement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court may reduce imprisonment on untimely Rule 35(b) motion | Redden: his post-sentencing rehabilitation and other equities justify relief | Court/State: Rule 35(b) requires filing within 90 days absent extraordinary circumstances; rehabilitation alone is not extraordinary | Denied — untimely and no extraordinary circumstances shown |
| Whether repetitive Rule 35(b) motions are permitted | Redden: seeks reconsideration despite prior denial | Court/State: Rule 35(b) expressly bars repetitive reduction requests | Denied — motion barred as repetitive |
| Whether rehabilitation can qualify as "extraordinary circumstances" under Rule 35(b) | Redden: rehabilitation constitutes extraordinary circumstances | Court: rehabilitation is within inmate's control and is the remedy of §4217, not Rule 35(b)'s extraordinary-circumstances exception | Held — rehabilitation alone insufficient to excuse untimeliness |
| Whether the court should modify Level IV partial confinement to home confinement | Redden: requests Level IV be designated home confinement to aid reentry | State/Court: Level IV (halfway house or home confinement) is part of sentencing plan; DOC placement discretion appropriate | Denied — court leaves placement to DOC and keeps Level IV term as imposed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lewis, 797 A.2d 1198 (Del. 2002) (defines "extraordinary circumstances" for untimely Rule 35(b) motions and limits rehabilitation as such)
- Giuricich v. Emtrol Corp., 449 A.2d 232 (Del. 1982) (statutory construction: differing terms imply intended distinctions)
- Defoe v. State, 750 A.2d 1200 (Del. 2000) (discusses Level IV as structured community-based supervision integral to sentencing)
- Dennis v. State, 41 A.3d 391 (Del. 2012) (interpreting disjunctive statutory language to indicate alternative, distinct exceptions)