Opinion
ID No. 1810005485 ID No. 1811002049
01-07-2020
STATE OF DELAWARE, v. CHRISTAN WASHINGTON, Defendant.
ORDER
This 7th day of January, 2020, upon consideration of Defendant Christan Washington's ("Defendant") pro se Motion for Sentence Modification and Reduction (the "Motion"), the sentence imposed upon Defendant, and the record in this case, it appears to the Court that:
ID No. 1810005485, D.I. 21.
1. On July 8, 2019, Defendant pled guilty to Assault in the Third Degree, Disregarding a Police Officer's Signal, Kidnapping in the First Degree, and Reckless Endangering in the First Degree.
ID No. 1810005485, D.I. 16; ID No. 1811002049, D.I. 16.
2. On July 8, 2019, Defendant was sentenced on the combined convictions to a total of 33 years at Level V, suspended after five years for 20 years at Level IV, suspended after six months for 18 months at Level III.
ID No. 1810005485, D.I. 20.
3. On October 3, 2019, Defendant filed this Motion, pursuant to Delaware Superior Court Criminal Rule 35 ("Rule 35"), which requests the Court to modify the remainder of his Level V sentence. Defendant requests the Court to suspend two years of his Level V time for six months of Level IV Home Confinement or Work Release, followed by 12 months at Level III "with completion of DVCC".
D.I. 21 at 3.
4. To support this modification, Defendant contends that his sentence violates the Delaware Constitution's Double Jeopardy Clause, and Title 11 Del.C. § 206, Method of prosecution when conduct constitutes more than one offense ("§206"). Specifically, Defendant argues that Assault in the Third Degree is a lesser included offense of Kidnapping in the First Degree and Reckless Endangering in the First Degree.
5. Rule 35(a) provides relief when a sentence imposed violates the "Double Jeopardy Clause." The Delaware Supreme Court has held that a motion for sentence modification that challenges a sentence based on double jeopardy violations is properly considered pursuant to Rule 35(a).
Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577 (Del. 1998).
Bowers v. State, 933 A.2d 1249 (Del. 2007).
6. However, Defendant entered into a guilty plea in this case, which "operates as a waiver of any double jeopardy claim surrounding the indictment." Therefore, the Court finds that the Defendant waived the claims that are raised in his Motion.
Id.
Additionally, the Court finds that Defendant's claims are without merit because he committed separate criminal acts to support each crime in this case. 11 Del.C. § 206. --------
7. The Court concludes that Defendant's sentence is appropriate for all the reasons stated at the time of sentencing. No additional information has been provided to the Court that would warrant a reduction or modification of this sentence.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendant's Motion for Sentence Modification and Reduction is hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/_________
Sheldon K. Rennie, Judge Original to Prothonotary Cc: Christan Washington (SBI # 00464029), HRYCI, Wilmington, DE
Jenna Milecki, DAG, Department of Justice, Wilmington, DE