Opinion
0806016612
10-16-2024
STATE OF DELAWARE, v. FRANKLIN D. MULLINS III, Defendant.
Date Submitted: August 15, 2024
ORDER
JAN R. JURDEN, PRESIDENT JUDGE
Upon consideration of Defendant Franklin Mullins' third Motion for Sentence Modification, Delaware Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b), statutory and decisional law, and the record, IT APPEARS THAT:
D.I. 26.
Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b).
(1) On January 12, 2009, Mullins pled guilty to Rape Second Degree (IN08-06-1519). By Order dated March 13, 2009, effective June 12, 2008, the Court sentenced Mullins as follows: 25 years at Level V, suspended after 22 years at Level V for 1 year at Level IV, followed by 2 years at Level III.
D.I. 10.
D.I. 16.
(2) On December 7, 2009, Mullins filed his first Motion for Sentence Modification to request the Court to "modify [his] sentence" because he is a first- time offender, the sentence is outside the Truth in Sentencing guidelines, and he has already served one year and six months. By Order dated March 9, 2009, the Court denied the motion.
D.I. 19.
D.I. 21. The motion was denied because motion was filed more than 90 days after the imposition of the sentence and is, therefore, time barred.
(3) On April 29, 2013, Mullins filed his second Motion for Sentence Modification requesting the Court "to specify that [he] is to be placed in either the Family Problems Group or the Connections Group, and upon completion of either group, the court will consider modifying the Non-Mandatory portion of his sentence." By Order dated May 21, 2013, the Court denied the motion.
D.I. 24.
D.I. 25. The motion was denied because motion was filed more than 90 days after the imposition of the sentence and is, therefore, time barred.
(4) On August 15, 2024, Mullins filed the instant Motion for Sentence Modification ("Motion") asking the Court "to adjust his 1 year of Level IV - Home Confinement to Level III."
D.I. 26.
(5) Delaware Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b) governs motions for modification of sentence. The purpose of Rule 35(b) is to "provide a reasonable period for the Court to consider alteration of its sentencing judgments." Rule 35(b) contains procedural bars for timeliness and repetitiveness. Under Rule 35(b), the "[C]ourt will not consider repetitive requests for reduction of sentence." The repetitive motion bar is applicable even when the request is for reduction or modification of a term of partial confinement or probation.
Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b).
State v. Remedio, 108 A.3d 326, 331 (Del. Super. 2014).
Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b).
Id.
State v. White, 2018 WL 3545505, at *1 (Del. Super. Ct. July 23, 2018); See also Teat v. State, 31 A.3d 77 (Del. 2011) (The Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed the denial of a motion seeking modification of partial confinement on the grounds that the motion was repetitive.).
(6) Because this is his third motion for sentence modification, Mullins' Motion is procedurally barred as repetitive.
See supra ¶¶ 2-4.
(7) The sentence is appropriate for all the reasons stated at the time of sentencing. No additional information has been provided to the Court which would warrant a reduction or modification of this sentence. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Mullins' third Motion for Sentence Modification is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.