Opinion
ID # 9904007640
Submitted: May 25, 2000.
Decided: June 8, 2000.
Letter Opinion and Order on: (1) Defendant's Motion for Reduction of Sentence — GRANTED; (2) Defendant's Pro Se Motion for Post-Conviction Relief — DENIED .
Gentlemen:
The Court has received two applications.
Mr. Edinger filed a Motion for Reduction of Sentence to give the Defendant credit for four days previously served (April 10, 2000 to April 14, 2000). The Motion is GRANTED and the Department of Corrections is directed to give Mr. Moon four days' credit for time previously served. IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Court also received an application from the Defendant. The Defendant seems to be under the impression that only prior DUI convictions within two years can be considered. Defendant has the following prior convictions:
5/23/92 DUI Sentenced, Superior Court 4/7/93 4/7/92 DUI Sentenced, Municipal Court 10/22/92 1/13/89 DUI Sentenced, Court 40 4/22/92 5/3/82 DUI Sentenced, Newark Alderman 5/18/82
Defendant is mistaken, for a fourth or subsequent conviction, there is no time limit on the prior offenses which can be considered. 21 Del. C. § 4177(d)(4). Defendant's speedy trial claims were decided by Judge Carpenter on December 2, 1999. The Court does not have to grant credit for time served on another charge. The Court ruled, I believe sua sponte, on the sufficiency of the Driving an Unregistered Motor Vehicle charge and I adhere to the ruling; surely Defendant was on notice of the charge. Since no details are set forth, the Court adheres to any evidentiary ruling being challenged. The Court is aware of no basis for an allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel and none is set forth. The pro se Motion is improper under Criminal Rule 47 and therefore DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.