Opinion
I.D. Nos. 9407009126, 981007219, 981007219
Date Submitted: July 18, 2002
Date Decided: September 9, 2002
Upon Consideration of Defendant's Motion for Sentence Modification — DENIED
ORDER
Defendant was indicted on the charge of felony theft from an infirm person on July 25, 1994 (I.D. No. 9407009126). After several continuances and capiases, the case was tried on August 4, 1997 and defendant was convicted. Prior to sentencing for this conviction, defendant posted bail. Defendant failed to appear for sentencing and the Court issued numerous capiases to secure his attendance. The State moved the Court to have defendant sentenced pursuant to the Habitual Criminal Act 1. The Court granted the State's motion, and on March 4, 1999, the Court sentenced defendant to five years at Level V pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 4214(a) for felony theft.
In addition to the above offense, defendant committed and pleaded guilty to assault in the second degree (IN98100690), felony theft (IN99010070) and receiving 1 See Del. C. ANN. tit. 11 Del. C. § 4214(a). stolen property (IN99011038). On March 22, 1999, the defendant was sentenced one year at Level V, two years at Level V suspended for two years at Level II, and two years at Level V suspended for two years at Level II. Defendant has filed several motions for reduction of his sentences. The Court has denied these requests on October 15, 1999, February 17, 2000 and August 8, 2001.
With respect to the sentence for Felony Theft imposed under the Habitual Offender Statute, the clear language of the Habitual Criminal Act prohibits reduction of that sentence by the Court.2
With respect to the other sentences, all but eight of the letters submitted in support of defendant's Motion for Modification of those sentences were submitted with the previous reduction motions denied by this Court on October 15, 1999, February 17, 2000 and August 8, 2001. While the Court is pleased that the defendant is taking advantage of educational and rehabilitative opportunities, given the facts and circumstances of his case, his status as an Habitual Offender and the lack of substantial new evidence demonstrating a reduction would otherwise be appropriate, the defendant's July 18, 2002 motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.