Opinion
Criminal I.D. No. 9811006562
May 24, 2001
ORDER
This 24th day of May, 2001, upon consideration of the defendant's motion for a modification of his sentence, it appears that:
(1) The defendant was sentenced by this Court, effective December 11, 1999, to three years at level V for the crime of Burglary 3rd. He was declared a habitual offender pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 4214(a) on March 24, 2000. The three year sentence is followed by periods of probation.
(2) The defendant seeks a modification of his sentence relieving him of the obligation to participate in a drug treatment program while at level V. The Department of Corrections, through the classification process, has assigned Webster to the treatment program.
(3) "Courts are generally very reluctant to interfere with the administration of prisons. O'Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 353, 107 S. Ct. 2400, 2407, 96 L. Ed. 2d 282 (1987); Block v. Rutherford, 468 U.S. 576, 588, 104 5. Ct. 3227, 3233, 82 L. Ed. 2d 438 (1984). The administration of prison systems is not `readily susceptible to judicial oversight and fall[s] within the auspices of the Executive branch of our State government.' McCoy v. Taylor, 1998 Del. Ch. LEXIS 220, *10-11, Del. Ch., C.A. No., 1998 WL 842322, Jacobs, V.C. (Nov. 12, 1998).4 `Only where a complaint adequately pleads an arbitrary and capricious abuse of discretion by prison authorities, or a clear deprivation or infringement of an inmate's constitutional rights, will this Court intervene in matters of internal prison administration.' 1998 Del. Ch. LEXIS 220 at *11." Riley v. Taylor, 1999 Del. LEXIS 3, Del. Super., No. 98C-09-247, Quillen, J. (Jan. 6, 1999).
(4) The defendant acknowledges that he has been unsuccessful in controlling his addiction to illegal substances in spite of the opportunity to participate in thirteen different treatment programs. He disagrees with the assessment of by classification that he needs the program it has identified. His assignment to drug treatment is not the type of arbitrary or capricious abuse of discretion or deprivation of constitutional rights which justifies intervention by this Court.
(5) The motion for modification of sentence is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.