From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Styers

Superior Court of Delaware
Jul 20, 2004
ID No. 0009016234 (Del. Super. Ct. Jul. 20, 2004)

Opinion

ID No. 0009016234.

July 20, 2004.


Dear Mr. Gill:

I have had the opportunity to review your Motion for Reconsideration and/or Reargument concerning the request to modify Mr. Styers' sentence. I have also received letters of support from family and friends. I am satisfied that my decision to deny the Motion for Modification is appropriate. As I noted in my July 1, 2004 decision, this was Mr. Styers' sixth violation of probation. Both Probation and TASC had exhausted their patience with him and recommended incarceration without further treatment. I noted his addiction problems created a community risk and ordered further treatment. I am satisfied his history of violating probation and his failure to address his addiction warrant the sentence imposed.

You are correct that the violation of probation was noted by the Court for missing two appointments. That does not mean the Court cannot take the individual's history and probation compliance problems into consideration in determining a sentence appropriate for that individual.

Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration and/or Reargument is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

State v. Styers

Superior Court of Delaware
Jul 20, 2004
ID No. 0009016234 (Del. Super. Ct. Jul. 20, 2004)
Case details for

State v. Styers

Case Details

Full title:RE: STATE v. CHRISTOPHER P. STYERS, Defendant

Court:Superior Court of Delaware

Date published: Jul 20, 2004

Citations

ID No. 0009016234 (Del. Super. Ct. Jul. 20, 2004)