Opinion
Def. ID No. 0105004069.
Submitted August 4, 2004.
August 12, 2004.
Charles R. Patterson, Jr., Sussex Correctional Institution.
Dear Mr. Patterson:
Pending before the Court is a motion which defendant Charles R. Patterson, Jr. ("defendant") has filed on a form provided for motions made pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 ("Rule 61"). This is my decision on the pending matter.
On May 4, 2001, defendant was arrested on charges of driving under the influence, a fourth offense; driving after judgment prohibited; driving while license suspended or revoked; failing to stop at a red light (three counts); driving off the roadway; and failing to signal. On September 19, 2001, defendant entered into a plea agreement providing for defendant to enter pleas of guilty to charges of driving under the influence and failing to stop at a stoplight. The agreement also called for a presentence investigation report to be prepared before defendant was sentenced on these two charges.
The action involved defendant's tenth driving under the influence charge. On November 2, 2001, the Court sentenced defendant to five (5) years at Level 5. The first six (6) months were mandatory. The Court imposed the remaining four (4) years and six (6) months pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 4204(k); consequently, defendant's Level 5 time will not be reduced by good time credits or any other form of sentence reduction or diminution. On June 25, 2002, the Court modified the sentence to add six (6) months at probation, which is a statutorily-required transitional provision. 11 Del. C. § 4204(l).
Defendant commenced filing motion after motion for modification of his sentence wherein he sought to have the § 4204(k) aspect of his sentence removed. This Court repeatedly has denied his requests, and finally, by letter order dated July 10, 2003, explained it would not respond to any further sentence modification requests. State v. Patterson, Del. Super., Def. ID# 0105004069, Stokes, J. (July 10, 2003).
Defendant's pending motion is on a Rule 61 form. However, within it, he asks that the § 4204(k) condition be removed. Thus, he again seeks a motion for modification of sentence. The request is denied because it is untimely and repetitive. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b).
Defendant asserts two other grounds for relief. The first ground provides: "Judge Stokes went beyond sentence plea agreement of 2-5 years/5 years mandatory `K'". The second ground states: "Misrepresentation". As supporting facts, he states: "Public Defender Ruth Smythe". Neither of these grounds make any sense. Defendant must present grounds which are intelligible. Consequently, I conclude these "grounds" fail.
For the foregoing reasons, I deny the motion for sentence modification and the motion for postconviction relief.
IT IS SO ORDERED.