Opinion
ID 2101001992 2107014689
04-13-2022
STATE OF DELAWARE, v. CUVE HARDING, Defendant.
Date Submitted: February 11, 2022
ORDER
JAN R. JURDEN, PRESIDENT JUDGE
Upon consideration of Defendant's Motion to Modify Current Sentence ("Motion"); the State's response thereto; Rule 35 of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure; statutory and decisional law; and the record in this case, IT APPEARS THAT:
ID No. 2101001992, D.I. 6; ID No. 2107014689, D.I. 5.
ID No. 2101001992, D.I. 7; ID No. 2107014689, D.I. 6.
1. On December 16, 2021, pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pled guilty to Theft of a Motor Vehicle and Unlawful Use of a Payment Card. For Theft of a Motor Vehicle, she was sentenced to 2 years Level V with credit for 143 days previously served, suspended after 6 months at Level V for 1 year Level III; for 1 Unlawful Use of a Payment Card, she was sentenced to 1 year Level V, suspended after 2 months at Level V for 1 year Level III.
ID No. 2101001992, D.I. 4; ID No. 2107014689, D.I. 3.
ID No. 2101001992, D.I. 5.
ID No. 2107014689, D.I. 4.
2. On February 11, 2022, Defendant filed the instant Motion. Defendant asks the Court to vacate her sentence or, in the alternative, modify it to time served at Level V followed by one year at Level III. In support of her Motion, Defendant asserts that she appreciates the wrongfulness of her conduct and claims that her mental health treatment is not working.
ID No. 2101001992, D.I. 6; ID No. 2107014689, D.I. 5.
Id.
3. On March 31, 2022, the State filed its response. The State opposes the Motion and argues that Defendant should pay her debt to society, accept the full consequences imposed by the Court's sentence, and take advantage of the treatment available. The State contends that Defendant seeks to avoid the consequences of her wrongful conduct and her comments regarding her mental health treatment clearly demonstrate she is not taking the treatment seriously. According to the State, the best place for Defendant to be is where she currently is, so that she can have more time to take advantage of the mental health resources available to her.Finally, the State argues that the current sentence is "by no means unduly severe" 2 given that the plea agreement entered into by Defendant reduced 21 pending criminal charges against her to the 2 above-mentioned charges.
ID No. 2101001992, D.I. 7; ID No. 2107014689, D.I. 6.
Id.
Id.
Id.
4. Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b) governs the modification and reduction of sentences. Pursuant to Rule 35(b), a motion to modify a sentence of imprisonment must be filed no later than 90 days after the sentence is imposed. On consideration of a timely motion, "the Court has broad discretion to decide if it should alter its judgment."
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b).
Id.
State v. Tollis, 126 A.3d 1117, 1120 (Del. Super. 2016).
5. While Defendant's Motion is timely, the Court finds no good cause to modify the sentence. The sentence is appropriate for all of the reasons stated at the time of sentencing and set forth in the State's response. No additional information has been provided to the Court that warrants modification.
NOW THEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Defendant's Motion to Modify Current Sentence is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED. 3