Opinion
No. 437, 1998.
Decided: May 10, 1999.
Court Below — Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County, Cr.A. Nos. IN94-12-1399, IN94-12-1401, IN94-12-1403, IN95-01-1175 and IN95-01-1177.
AFFIRMED.
Unpublished Opinion is below.
CEDRIC DAVIS, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. No. 437, 1998. Supreme Court of Delaware. Submitted: May 4, 1999. Decided: May 10, 1999.
Court Below — Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County, Cr.A. Nos. IN94-12-1399, IN94-12-1401, IN94-12-1403, IN95-01-1175 and IN95-01-1177.
Before HOLLAND, HARTNETT and BERGER, Justices.
ORDER
This tenth day of May 1999, it appears to the Court that:
1) The defendant-appellant, Cedric Davis ("Davis"), pled guilty in October 1993 to one count of Trafficking and two counts of Use of a Vehicle for Keeping Controlled Substances. In exchange, the State agreed to enter a nolle prosequi on the other seven counts of the indictment. The prosecution and the defense also agreed, under Superior Court Criminal Rule 11(e)(1)(C) ("Rule 11(e)(1)(C)"), that the appropriate term of imprisonment was a total of six years. Davis was immediately sentenced to eight years imprisonment, suspended after six years imprisonment for two years probation.
2) In January 1994, Davis filed a motion to reduce his sentence, pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b) ("Rule 35(b)"). That motion was denied in February 1995. No appeal was taken from that judgment.
3) In August 1998, Davis filed a second motion to reduce his sentence, pursuant to Rule 35(b). Davis sought reduction of his final year of incarceration to probation. The Superior Court summarily denied the motion, holding that reduction was unwarranted because the sentence had been agreed upon by the State and Davis under Rule 11(e)(1)(C).
4) We have concluded that the Superior Court's judgment on appeal should be affirmed on an alternative basis. Davis' August 1998 Rule 35(b) motion for a reduction of his sentence was repetitive. Rule 35(b) provides that "the Court will not consider repetitive requests for reduction of sentence." Thus, Davis' 1998 motion was barred by the prohibition in Rule 35(b) on repetitive motions.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Randy J. Holland Justice