State v. Dunham

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE STATE OF DELAWARE, ) ) v. ) ID No. 2308002596 ) DAMEAN M. DUNHAM, ) ) Defendant. ) ) Date Submitted: September 11, 2023 Date Decided: October 2, 2023 ORDER Upon consideration of Defendant Damean Dunham’s Motion for Sentence Modification (“Motion”),1 Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b), statutory and decisional law, and the record, IT APPEARS THAT: (1) On August 30, 2023, Dunham pled guilty to Driving with a Suspended and/or Revoked License (N23-08-0627-I) and Carrying a Concealed Deadly Weapon (“CCDW”) (N23-08-0626-I).2 Dunham seeks to modify his sentence for Driving with a Suspended and/or Revoked License. On that charge, Dunham was sentenced to a mandatory minimum of 60 days of unsuspended Level V time and required to pay costs and a $1,000 fine.3

D.I. 4.

D.I. 2.

D.I. 3. Dunham’s sentence for CCDW is as follows: 8 years at level V, suspended for 1 year at Level II. Id. Conditions of Dunham’s sentence include forfeiture of the firearm seized and no driving without insurance or a license. Id. (2) Dunham filed the instant Motion on September 11, 2023.4 He requests that the Court suspend his remaining Level V time for probation.5 In support of his request, Dunham states that Howard Young Correctional Institution is overcrowded, and his good conduct weighs in favor of his modification request.6 (3) Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b) governs motions for modification of sentence.7 The purpose of Rule 35(b) is to “provide a reasonable period for the Court to consider alteration of its sentencing judgments.”8 Rule 35(b) contains procedural bars for timeliness and repetitiveness.9 Under Rule 35(b), the “[C]ourt may reduce a sentence of imprisonment on a motion made within 90 days after the sentence is imposed.”10 Furthermore, under Rule 35(b) “[t]he [C]ourt will not consider repetitive requests for reduction of sentence.”11 Additionally, the Court cannot modify the minimum mandatory portion of a sentence.12 (4) Dunham’s Motion is not procedurally barred. It was filed on September 11, 2023, which is within 90 days from when he was sentenced as required by Rule 35(b).13 This is Dunham’s first motion, and therefore it is not barred as repetitive.

D.I. 4.

Id. Id. Mr. Dunham also states COVID-19 as a concern. Id. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b).

State v. Remedio, 108 A.3d 326, 331 (Del. Super. 2014).

Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b). Id. Id. Del. C. § 4204(d).

D.I. 3-4. (5) Dunham’s unsuspended sentence of 60 days at Level V for Driving with a Suspended and/or Revoked License is a mandatory minimum sentence and the Court lacks the authority to reduce it.14 Moreover, the Court finds the sentence is appropriate for all the reasons stated at the time of sentencing.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Sentence Modification is DENIED.

/s/ Jan R. Jurden Jan R. Jurden, President Judge

cc: Original to Prothonotary Marc Petrucci, DAG Damean Dunham (SBI # 00878708)

See 21 Del. C. § 2756(a).