From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Jennings

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR KENT COUNTY
Aug 11, 2014
ID. No.: 1203003795 (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 11, 2014)

Summary

finding "Section 3901(d), as amended, was not intended by the Delaware General Assembly to have a retroactive effect."

Summary of this case from State v. Desmond

Opinion

ID. No.: 1203003795 ID. No.: 1304023113

08-11-2014

STATE OF DELAWARE, v. JAMES O. JENNINGS.


ORDER

This 11th day of August, 2014, upon consideration of the Defendant's Motion for Reduction of Sentence and the record of this case, it appears that:

1. The Defendant, James O. Jennings, was convicted of two counts of drug dealing on June 26, 2013 in criminal action numbers IK12-04-0123 and K13-05-0147I. In IK12-04-0123 the defendant was sentenced to 15 years at supervision level 5 with credit for 22 days previously served, suspended after 2 years, 6 months for supervision level 4 Crest Program. In K-13-05-0147I the defendant was sentenced to 8 years at supervision level 5, suspended after 2 years, 6 months, followed by level 3. In accordance with Title 11, Section 3901(d) of the Delaware Code, the level 5 sentences of confinement were consecutive.

2. Section 3901(d) has recently been amended, with an effective date of July 9, 2014, to read in pertinent part as follows: "The court shall direct whether the sentence of confinement of any criminal defendant by any court of this State shall be made to run concurrently or consecutively with any other sentence of confinement imposed on such criminal defendant."

3. The Defendant contends that the amended language of Section 3901(d) should be applied retroactively to his sentences, and he requests that the Court direct that the level 5 sentences of confinement in the two above-mentioned criminal action numbers be served concurrently.

4. Pursuant to Delaware case law, there is a presumption that a statute will not be applied retroactively unless the statute clearly contains express language indicating that the legislature intended a retroactive application.

State v. Ismaaeel, 840 A.2d 644, 654 (Del. Super. 2004) (citing State v. Nixon, 46 A.2d 874, 875 (Del.Gen.Sess.1946)).

5. The Court finds that Section 3901(d), as amended, was not intended by the Delaware General Assembly to have a retroactive effect. Therefore, the Defendant's motion is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

__________

President Judge
oc: Prothonotary
cc: Nicole S. Hartman

Mr. James O. Jennings

File


Summaries of

State v. Jennings

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR KENT COUNTY
Aug 11, 2014
ID. No.: 1203003795 (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 11, 2014)

finding "Section 3901(d), as amended, was not intended by the Delaware General Assembly to have a retroactive effect."

Summary of this case from State v. Desmond

finding "Section 3901(d), as amended, was not intended by the Delaware General Assembly to have a retroactive effect."

Summary of this case from State v. Priest
Case details for

State v. Jennings

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF DELAWARE, v. JAMES O. JENNINGS.

Court:SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR KENT COUNTY

Date published: Aug 11, 2014

Citations

ID. No.: 1203003795 (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 11, 2014)

Citing Cases

State v. Thomas

But just as this Court and our Supreme Court consistently held when examining those earlier 2014 changes to §…

State v. Priest

State v. Ismaaeel, 840 A.2d 644 (Del. Super. 2004) (quoting State v. Nixon, 46 A.2d 874, 875 (Del. Gen. Sess.…