Opinion
ID#: 9812000028.
Submitted: July 18, 2006.
Decided: October 31, 2006.
Upon Defendant's Motion for Modification of Sentence, DENIED.
ORDER
Defendant's driving privileges were lifted as a condition of the sentence imposed on January 7, 2006. On March 13, 2006, Defendant submitted a letter requesting sentence modification, including relaxation of the sentence's ban on Defendant's driving. On March 17, 2006, the court issued an order calling for the State's response, if it opposed Defendant's request. The order provided that if the court did not receive a timely response, it could deem the request as unopposed.
On April 17, 2006, after the deadline for response had passed, the court deemed Defendant's request as unopposed, and it reduced his overall probation period to ten years, which was consistent with Defendant's plea agreement under former Superior Court Criminal Rule 11(e)(1)(c). The court also rescinded the condition of probation prohibiting Defendant from receiving a driver's license. The court left reinstatement of Defendant's driving privileges to the Division of Motor Vehicles.
On June 3, 2006, Defendant filed a "Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus," demanding reinstatement of his driving privileges. After reviewing Defendant's pleading, the court denied habeas corpus, but it converted the matter into a Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b) proceeding. Again, the court called for the State's response. The State responded on July 18, 2006, opposing reinstatement.
Having further reviewed Defendant's latest pleading and the State's response, it appears that, as described above, the court modified Defendant's probationary sentence, without opposition, on April 17, 2006. That order speaks for itself, and it stands. There is no violation of probation proceeding before the court, and there is nothing else for the court to consider concerning Defendant's sentence.
In other words, Defendant is still on probation, and his driving illegally would be a serious violation of probation. But whether Defendant is entitled to a driver's license is no longer a matter for the court or Probation Parole. It is between the Division of Motor Vehicles and Defendant. The Division of Motor Vehicles is not a party to this case, and it is not before the court. If Defendant believes the Division of Motor Vehicles is improperly denying his driving privileges, that is a separate matter, which the court will consider upon proper presentation. Presently, there is no basis for further action under the above-captioned criminal action number.