State v. Young

Full title: STATE OF DELAWARE v. IDRIS L. YOUNG Defendant.

Court: SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

Date published: Aug 12, 2016

ID# 0511017930A (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 12, 2016)

Opinion

ID# 0511017930A

08-12-2016

STATE OF DELAWARE v. IDRIS L. YOUNG Defendant.

cc: Prothonotary - Original The Honorable Bradley Manning Ipek Medford, Deputy Attorney General Idris L. Young

Calvin L. Scott, Judge

ORDER

On this 12^th day of August , 2016 , upon consideration of the Defendant's Pro Se Motion for Post-conviction Relief and the Commissioner's Report, the Recommendation That Defendant's Pro Se Motion for Post-conviction Relief Should be Denied, the defendant's appeal from the Commissioner's Findings of Fact and Recommendations and the record in this case, it appears that:

1. On October 5, 2006 a jury found the defendant guilty of Attempted Murder 1^st Degree, Assault 2^nd Degree and 2 counts of Possession of a Deadly Weapon During the Commission of a Felony. The State entered a nolle prosequi on the remaining counts. On October 16, 2006 a Motion for Judgment of Acquittal was filed. On October 19, 2006, the State filed an answer to the Motion for Judgment of Acquittal. On March 13, 2007, the Motion for Judgment of Acquittal was denied by the Superior Court. On November 9, 2007, the defendant was sentenced as follows: Attempted Murder 1^st Degree, 35 years at Level 5. The defendant is declared a Habitual Offender on this charge pursuant to 11 Del.C. 4214(a); Two counts of Possession of a Deadly Weapon During the Commission of a Felony, 5 years at Level 5 for each count; and Assault 2^nd, 10 years at Level

5. The defendant is declared a Habitual Offender on this charge pursuant to 11 Del.C. 4214(a).

2. This is Young's second motion for post-conviction relief. The first was denied. On June 6, 2016, the Commissioner filed a Report and Recommendation that Defendant's Pro Se Motion for Post-conviction relief should be denied.

3. In defendant's Appeal from Commissioner's Finding, defendant makes an attempt to subvert the process by trying to somehow convert a portion of his post-conviction motion, which is in front of the Court, to a Motion to Correct or Reduce sentence under 35(A), which is not in front of the Court. 35(A) makes a distinction between an illegal sentence, which may be corrected at any time and a sentence imposed in an illegal manner, which must be corrected in the same time frame as a reduction of sentence. Here, the sentence is not an illegal sentence and no extraordinary circumstance has been demonstrated to justify a reduction in sentence.

IT IS ORDERED that the Commissioner's Report, including its Recommendation, is adopted by the Court. Defendant's Motion for Post-conviction Relief is DENIED.

/s/_________

Calvin L. Scott, Judge cc: Prothonotary - Original

The Honorable Bradley Manning

Ipek Medford, Deputy Attorney General

Idris L. Young