State v. Naisho

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE STATE OF DELAWARE, ) ) v. ) ID No. 0903024333 ) VANESSA NAISHO ) ) Defendant. ) ) Date Submitted: February 5, 2025 Date Decided: April 22, 2025 ORDER Upon consideration of Vanessa Naisho’s Motion for Sentence Modification,1 Delaware Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b),2 statutory and decisional law, and the record, IT APPEARS THAT: (1) On January 12, 2012, Naisho pled guilty to the following charges: Robbery First (IN09-04-2106) and Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony (“PFDCF”) (IN09-04-2108).3 (2) On March 26, 2012, Naisho was sentenced as follows: for Robbery First, 20 years Level V, suspended after 15 years for 5 years Level IV Work Release, suspended after 6 months for 18 months Level III; for PFDCF, 5 years Level V.4

D.I. 56.

Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b).

D.I. 31.

D.I. 44. (3) On April 19, 2010, Naisho filed her first Rule 35(b) motion.5 On May 28, 2010, the Court denied Naisho’s motion because her sentence was imposed pursuant to a Plea Agreement.6 (4) On February 5, 2025, Naisho filed the instant Motion, asking the Court to modify the sentence for her Robbery First charge to the following: 20 years Level V, suspended after 15 years for 18 months Level III.7 In support of her Motion, Naisho mentions that she (1) has mental and physical disabilities that warrant relief; (2) will be 62 years old, suffers from chronic pain, and will be applying for Disability Benefits upon her release; and (3) intends on seeking re-entry assistance if her sentence is modified.8 (5) Rule 35(b) governs motions for modification of partial confinement or probation.9 Pursuant to Rule 35(b), the Court may consider reducing the term or conditions of partial confinement or probation at any time; however, the Court “will not consider repetitive requests for reduction of sentence.”10 A motion is repetitive

D.I. 47.

D.I. 49.

D.I. 56. Naisho is seeking to have her Level IV time suspended for her Robbery First charge.

Id. Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b).

Id.; see also State v. McCray, 2024 WL 885436, at ¶ 4 (Del. Super. Mar. 1, 2024). when it is proceeded by an earlier Rule 35(b) motion, even if the subsequent motion raises new arguments.11 (6) Because Naisho seeks to modify her Level IV sentence, her request is not time-barred. However, the bar to consider repetitive requests for modification of a sentence is absolute.12 “This procedural bar applies even when the subsequent motion requests a reduction or modification of a term of partial confinement or probation.”13 (7) Because this is Naisho’s second Rule 35(b) motion, the instant Motion is barred as repetitive.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Naisho’s Motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Calvin L. Scott Judge Calvin L. Scott, Jr.

cc: Original to Prothonotary Joseph S. Grubb, DAG Vanessa Naisho, Defendant State v. Culp, 152 A.3d 141, 144 (Del. 2016); see also Valentine v. State, 2014 WL 7894374, at *2 (Del. Dec. 31, 2014) (describing a second Rule 35(b) motion, which raised a new argument, as “untimely and repetitive”).

McCray, 2024 WL 885436 at ¶ 5 (citing State v. Burton, 2020 WL 3057888, at *2 (Del. Super. June 5, 2020) (“The bar to considering repetitive motions has no exceptions.”)). Id.