Opinion
I.D. 1910011056
12-04-2023
STATE OF DELAWARE v. KYAIR BAYNARD, Defendant.
Submitted: November 16, 2023
ORDER
Vivian L. Medinilla Judge
AND NOW TO WIT, this 4th day of December 2023, upon consideration of Kyair Baynard ("Defendant")'s Motion for "Reduction and Correction" of Sentence under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35, the sentence imposed upon the Defendant, and the record in this case, it appears to the Court that:
1. On April 18, 2022, Defendant pled guilty to Carrying a Concealed Deadly Weapon. The sentence in Defendant's case was imposed pursuant to a Plea Agreement between the State and Defendant where Defendant agreed to ask for an incarceration period of no less than three years. The Court honored Defendant's request and on July 15, 2022, Defendant was sentenced to eight years at Level V, suspended after three years for 18 months at Level III.
See D.I. 46.
Id.
See D.I. 47.
2. In August 2022, Defendant filed a Motion for modification of Sentence. The Court denied the motion.
D.I. 48.
D.I. 50.
3. On October 12, 2022, Defendant filed a letter asking this Court to reduce the last six months of his prison sentence to Level IV Work Release in order to earn wages. Defendant did not cite Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b) in his letter but, given the request, the Court considered his request under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b). And on January 5, 2023, this Court summarily dismissed Defendant's petition as repetitive.
D.I. 52.
Jones v. State, 825 A.2d 238, 2003 WL 21210348, at *1 (Del. May 22, 2003) (TABLE) ("There is no separate procedure, other than that which is provided under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35, to reduce or modify a sentence.").
D.I. 53.
4. Defendant now files and asks this Court to reduce his Level V sentence to 6 months of Level IV, "to provide any relief deemed appropriate and [afford him] a review under any above provisions" and to "retract [sic] and correct [his initial] August 2022 letter (D.I. 48) which was contexted [sic] and construed [sic] as a motion for modification."
Defendant's Motion for Reduction and Correction, D.I. 54.
5. Defendant also argues that his second request for modification filed in October 2022 (D.I. 52) was "ambiguous" under Rule 35(a), that he was "never granted a chance at rehabilitation," and that also under 35(b), this Court may consider his achievements as a basis for relief. Defendant argues that he has "done half of his time and completed 1) inside-Out UD College Course; 2) received a yellow badge "off grounds status"; and 3) is now at Plummer Center working inside the kitchen with "outside status," essentially serving as a "role model through his incarceration."
Id. at 3.
Id.
Id. at 2.
Id. at 3.
6. Under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a), the Court "may correct an illegal sentence at any time." Rule 35(a) is limited to situations where the sentence imposed: exceeds statutorily-authorized limits, violates double jeopardy, "is ambiguous with respect to the time and manner in which it is to be served, is internally contradictory, omits a term required to be imposed by statute, is uncertain as to its substance, or is a sentence that the judgment of conviction did not authorize." The "narrow function" of Rule 35(a) is to correct illegal sentences, "not to re-examine errors occurring at the trial or other proceedings prior to the imposition of the sentence."
Cite to Docket.
Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998) (citations omitted). See Ellerbe v. State, 155 A.3d 12832017 WL 462144, at *1 (Del. Feb. 2, 2017) (TABLE) (quoting Brittingham, 705 A.2d at 578).
Brittingham, 705 A.2d at 578 (quoting Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 430 (1962)). See also Ellerbe, 2017 WL 462144, at *1.
7. Defendant fails to establish a claim for relief under Rule 35(a) to "correct" his sentence. That he argues that his October 2022 letter seeking relief was "ambiguous" and the Court considered it under Rule 35(b) instead of 35(a) is not a basis for correction or relief. No relief is available under Rule 35(a) where Defendant does not claim that there was any ambiguity with respect to the time and manner in which his sentence is to be served. His sentence does not exceed the statutory maximum, does not implicate double jeopardy, and is neither ambiguous nor contradictory.
8. Defendant also fails to establish a claim for relief under Rule 35(b) to reduce his sentence. He moves the Court to "retract" his original filings so that they not be deemed repetitive. Defendant fails to establish reasons to vacate its prior rulings. Even if this Court deemed it appropriate to vacate the prior Rule 35 Orders-and it does not-it would not change the outcome of this decision. Defendant still provides no basis for relief.
9. Under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b), the Court may reduce a sentence of imprisonment on a motion made within ninety days after the sentence is imposed. Defendant is time-barred. In order to overcome the ninety-day time bar in Rule 35(b), Defendant must show that "extraordinary circumstances" forgive the tardiness of his Motion. This exception is not a plea for leniency nor does it permit "exceptional rehabilitation" to suffice for "extraordinary circumstances." Thus, Defendant's reasons that he has been a role model through his incarceration is insufficient a basis for relief. This Court does not find that Defendant has raised any "extraordinary circumstances" to overcome this bar.
Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b).
The Delaware Supreme Court has defined "extraordinary circumstances" as circumstances which: "'specifically justify the delay;' are 'entirely beyond a petitioner's control;' and 'have prevented the applicant from seeking the remedy on a timely basis.'" State v. Diaz, 113 A.3d 1081, 2015 WL 1741768, at *2 (Del. 2015) (TABLE) (quoting State v. Lewis, 797 A.2d 1198, 1203, 1205 (Del. 2002) (Steele, C.J., dissenting)).
See Colon v. State, 900 A.2d 635, 638 (Del. 2006).
See Morrison v State, 846 A.2d 238, 2004 WL 716773, at *1-2 (Del. Mar. 24, 2004) (TABLE).
10. Defendant's sentence is appropriate for all the reasons previously stated, imposed per a plea agreement wherein the Court agreed with Defendant to impose a three year incarceration period.
IT IS SO ORDERED that the Motion for Modification of Sentence is DENIED under Rule 35(a) and SUMMARILY DISMISSED under Rule 35(b).