Opinion
I.D. No. 1104009086 I.D. No. 1103012722 I.D. No. 1107010471
02-05-2020
STATE OF DELAWARE, v. NAHKEEM WATSON, Defendant.
ORDER
AND NOW TO WIT, this 5th day of February 2020, upon consideration of Nahkeem Watson's ("Defendant") Motion for Modification/ Reduction of Sentence, the sentence imposed upon the Defendant, and the record in this case, it appears to the Court that:
1. On October 11, 2013, Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of Possession of a Firearm during the Commission of a Felony ("PFDCF"), one count of Possession with Intent to Deliver Cocaine ("PWID-Cocaine"), and one count of Assault in a Detention Facility. On January 17, 2014, Defendant was sentenced as follows: (1) For the PFDCF charge, three years at Level V; (2) for the PWID-Cocaine charge, five years at Level V, suspended for two years at Level IV DOC Discretion, suspended after six months at Level IV DOC Discretion, for eighteen months at Level III; and (3) For the Assault charge, two years at Level V.
See Case Review Plea Hearing: Pled Guilty/ PSI Ordered, State of Delaware v. Nahkeem Watson, Crim. ID No. 1104009086, D.I. 41 (Del. Super. Ct. Oct. 11, 2013).
Sentencing Calendar: Defendant Sentenced by J. Jane M. Brady, State of Delaware v. Nahkeem Watson, Crim. ID No. 1104009086, D.I. 42 (Del. Super. Ct. Jan. 17, 2014).
2. Since then, Defendant has been found in Violation of Probation two times. In March 2018, after finding Defendant to be in Violation of Probation, this Court sentenced Defendant to four years and one hundred and seventy-nine days at Level V, suspended after six months at Level V, no probation to follow.
See Violation of Probation Hearing: Defendant Found in Violation. Sentenced by J. Paul R. Wallace, State of Delaware v. Nahkeem Watson, Crim. ID No. 1104009086, D.I. 67 (Del. Super. Ct. July 12, 2016); see also Violation of Probation Hearing: Defendant Found in Violation. Sentenced by this Court, State of Delaware v. Nahkeem Watson, Crim. ID No. 1104009086, D.I. 75 (Del. Super. Ct. Mar. 9, 2019).
Sentence: ASOP VOP Order Signed, State of Delaware v. Nahkeem Watson, Crim. ID No. 1104009086, D.I. 76 (Del. Super. Ct. Mar. 9, 2019).
3. On November 13, 2019, Defendant filed this, his third, Motion for Modification/ Reduction of Sentence under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b). In his motion, Defendant requests that this Court modify his Level V sentence, so as to account for "good time" or to run his Level V sentences consecutively. In support of his motion, Defendant states the following grounds for relief: (1) "Rehabilitation/ Program Participation" - Defendant contends that he has voluntarily enrolled in these programs that will "save [him] from coming back to jail[;]" (2) "Family Support/ Family Hardship" - Defendant asserts that he is in fear of "retaliation" in regards to "gang" violence, both in regards to his time incarcerated and time outside; (3) "Self Growth/ Employment" - Defendant claims to have a job opportunity ready for him upon release.
Defendant filed two previous Motions for Modification/ Reduction of Sentence. See Defendant's Motion for Reduction of Sentence, State of Delaware v. Nahkeem Watson, Crim. ID No. 1104009086, D.I. 46 (Del. Super. Ct. July 28, 2014); see also Defendant's Motion for Reduction of Sentence, State of Delaware v. Nahkeem Watson, Crim. ID No. 1104009086, D.I. 55 (Del. Super. Ct. May 21, 2015).
Defendant's Motion for Modification/ Reduction of Sentence, State of Delaware v. Nahkeem Watson, Crim. ID No. 1104009086, D.I. 78 (Del. Super. Ct. Nov. 13, 2019) [hereinafter "Def.'s Mot."]; see SUPER. CT. CRIM. R. 35(b).
See Def.'s Mot. at page 3.
Def.'s Mot. at page 2.
4. Under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b), the Court may reduce a sentence of imprisonment on a motion made within ninety days after the sentence is imposed. Defendant is time-barred. In order to overcome the ninety-day time bar in Rule 35(b), Defendant must show that "extraordinary circumstances" forgive the tardiness of his Motion. This exception is not a plea for leniency nor does it permit "exceptional rehabilitation" to suffice for "extraordinary circumstances." This Court does not find that Defendant has raised any "extraordinary circumstances" to overcome this bar.
SUPER. CT. CRIM. R. 35(b).
The Delaware Supreme Court has defined "extraordinary circumstances" as circumstances which: "'specifically justify the delay;' are 'entirely beyond a petitioner's control;' and 'have prevented the applicant from seeking the remedy on a timely basis.'" State v. Diaz, 113 A.3d 1081, 2015 WL 1741768, at *2 (Del. 2015) (TABLE) (quoting State v. Lewis, 797 A.2d 1198, 1203, 1205 (Del. 2002) (Steele, C.J., dissenting)).
See Colon v. State, 900 A.2d 635, 638 (Del. 2006).
See Morrison v. State, 846 A.2d 238, 2004 WL 716773, at *1-2 (Del. 2004) (TABLE).
5. Additionally, Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b) also provides that "[t]he court will not consider repetitive requests for reduction of sentence." A motion is considered repetitive when it "is preceded by an earlier Rule 35(b) motion, even if the subsequent motion raises new arguments." The bar to repetitive motions has no exception. It is absolute and flatly "prohibits repetitive requests for reduction of sentence." Defendant's first two Motions for Modification/ Reduction of Sentence were previously denied. Therefore, this third Rule 35(b) motion is also barred as repetitive.
SUPER. CT. CRIM. R. 35(b) (emphasis added).
State v. Culp, 152 A.3d 141, 144 (Del. 2016).
Thomas v. State, 2002 WL 31681804, at *1 (Del. 2002). See also Jenkins v. State, 2008 WL 2721536, at *1 (Del. 2008) (Rule 35(b) "prohibits the filing of repetitive sentence reduction motions."); Morrison, 2004 WL 716773, at *2 (defendant's "motion was repetitive, which also precluded its consideration by the Superior Court.").
See Order Denying Motion for Reduction of Sentence by J. Jane M. Brady, State of Delaware v. Nahkeem Watson, Crim. ID No. 1104009086, D.I. 47 (Del. Super. Ct. Nov. 13, 2014); see also Order Denying Motion for Reduction of Sentence by J. Paul R. Wallace, State of Delaware v. Nahkeem Watson, Crim. ID No. 1104009086, D.I. 57 (Del. Super. Ct. June 8, 2015). --------
6. As such, Defendant's Level V sentence is and remains appropriate for all the reasons stated at the time of sentencing.
IT IS SO ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Modification is DENIED.
/s/_________
Vivian L. Medinilla
Judge oc: Prothonotary
cc: Department of Justice
Investigative Services
Defendant