State of Delaware v. Remedio.
108 A.3d 326
| Del. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- On January 6–7, 2013, Daniel R. Remedio assaulted his wife with a wine bottle (causing a severe laceration), threatened family members with a kitchen knife, struck and kicked an adult daughter protecting the victim, and endangered a nine‑year‑old who witnessed the events.
- Police arrested Remedio shortly after the incident; a grand jury indicted him on multiple counts including second‑degree assault, aggravated menacing, possession of a deadly weapon during a felony, terroristic threatening, and endangering the welfare of a child.
- Remedio pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to one count each of second‑degree assault, aggravated menacing, and PDWDCF; the court imposed an aggregate sentence of five years at Level V (with some suspensions) on February 14, 2014.
- The sentencing court expressly noted aggravating factors: cruelty of the offenses, the child victim’s vulnerability, and defendant’s lack of remorse; defense presented forensic and mental‑health records at sentencing.
- Remedio filed a motion to modify his sentence under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b) (and invoked the court’s inherent authority) 108 days after sentencing — beyond Rule 35(b)’s 90‑day limit — asserting remorse and significant physical and mental health issues as mitigating/extraordinary circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Remedio) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court can modify the sentence under its inherent authority despite no reservation in the sentencing order | Remedio invoked the court’s inherent authority to reconsider and reduce his sentence | The State argued the court did not reserve inherent authority in the original sentence, so inherent authority is unavailable | Court: Inherent authority was not reserved in the sentencing order, so it cannot be invoked; therefore only Rule 35(b) or 11 Del. C. § 4217 could provide relief |
| Whether untimely Rule 35(b) motion may be considered because of "extraordinary circumstances" | Remedio claimed remorse and serious physical/mental health issues constitute extraordinary circumstances excusing the 90‑day bar | The State argued those facts were known and presented at sentencing and do not justify the delay | Court: Remorse and health issues were before the court at sentencing and do not amount to extraordinary circumstances; the Rule 35(b) motion is procedurally barred and is denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Sloman v. State, 886 A.2d 1257 (Del. 2005) (describing narrow circumstances in which a sentencing court may exercise inherent authority to modify a sentence when such authority was expressly reserved)
- Lewis v. State, 797 A.2d 1198 (Del. 2002) (describing the ‘‘extraordinary circumstances’’ standard to excuse an untimely Rule 35(b) motion)
- United States v. Ellenbogen, 390 F.2d 537 (2d Cir. 1968) (explaining the purpose of a short time limit for post‑sentencing reduction motions to permit reconsideration for leniency)