State v. Morse, 1208005897

Melvin Morse was convicted (April 11, 2014) of Reckless Endangering (1st & 2nd degree) and three counts of Endangering the Welfare of a Child; sentence included Level Five incarceration (served) and two years Level Three probation (concurrent).
Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the conviction on August 26, 2015.
Morse filed a first Rule 35 motion in October 2015 (denied as untimely). He filed a second Rule 35 motion on February 7, 2017 seeking discharge or reduction of remaining Level Three probation (he had completed ~1 year of Level Three).
Morse argued severe medical conditions (prostate cancer, thyroid cancer, metastatic lung cancer, history of Hepatitis C treatment), remorse, completion of prison programs, compliance with probation, and community stigma justify reducing or discharging probation.
Probation Officer Paulette Perry reported no medical documentation corroborating severe illness, observed Morse appeared robust, and recommended no change; Probation and Parole had increased his supervision level citing dishonest travel requests and unsupervised contact with a daughter.
The Superior Court denied the motion as procedurally barred as a successive Rule 35 motion and, alternatively, found no substantive basis to alter the sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of Rule 35 motion	Morse: modification of Level Three probation may be sought at any time	Court: Rule 35(b) 90-day limit applies generally, but probation modifications may be considered anytime	Court: Request timely because probation modification not subject to 90-day limit
Successive Rule 35 motions	Morse: seeks relief from probation only; previous denial irrelevant	State: successive Rule 35 motions barred regardless of relief sought	Court: Motion denied as repetitive/successive under Rule 35(b)
Substantive entitlement based on health	Morse: severe illnesses warrant reduction/discharge of probation to avoid harm	State/Probation: lack of medical documentation; officer observed robust health	Court: No convincing medical proof; not persuaded to alter sentence
Compliance and public safety concerns	Morse: completed programs, remorseful, complied with terms	Probation: upgraded supervision for dishonesty and unsupervised contact with child; recommends no change	Court: Probation’s concerns weigh against modifying sentence

State v. Redden, 111 A.3d 602 (Del. 2015) (discusses procedural requirements for post-sentencing Rule 35 motions)
Johnson v. State, 234 A.2d 447 (Del. 1967) (explains Rule 35’s purpose of allowing the sentencing court to reconsider its judgment)