Superior Court of Delaware, 2025

State v. Lloyd

State v. Lloyd
Superior Court of Delaware · Decided May 7, 2025 · Jones J.
State v. Lloyd

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE STATE OF DELAWARE, ) ) v. ) ID No: 1710006739 ) ERIC LLOYD, ) ) Defendant. ) Submitted: April 29, 2025 Decided: May 7, 2025 ORDER Upon Consideration of Defendant’s Motion for Sentence Reduction GRANTED in part / DENIED in part 1. Defendant, Eric Lloyd, filed the instant Motion for Sentence Reduction on April 23, 2025.1 Defendant asks the Court to reduce his sentence citing his good behavior while in prison, the number of programs he has completed while incarcerated, and the fact that he has both a job and a place to live upon his release.2 2. Defendant pled guilty to Criminal Racketeering, Two Counts of Conspiracy in the Second Degree; Money Laundering; and Attempting to Defeat Taxes.3 Defendant was sentenced on February 21, 2025 to an Aggravate of 10 years at Level V followed by decreasing levels of probation. Defendant seeks a

Docket Item (“D.I.”) 229.

Id. D.I. 228. modification to suspend the remainder of his Level V time for two years at Level III or suspend the remainder of his Level V time for 6 months Level IV (house arrest) followed by two years at Level III.4 3. Under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b), “[t]he court may reduce a sentence of imprisonment on a motion made within 90 days after the sentence is imposed.”5 If the motion is filed later than 90 days after imposition of the sentence, the Court will only consider the motion “in extraordinary circumstances.”6 The Court may consider a sentence reduction motion “without presentation, hearing, or argument.”7 4. Defendant’s sentence was imposed on February 21, 2025, and Defendant filed the instant Motion on April 23, 2025. Therefore, Defendant complies with the 90-day filing period required by Rule 35(b).

5. After reviewing Defendant’s Motion, the entire record of the case, and all sentencing information provided, this Court does not find a sentence modification is appropriate. Virtually all of the reasons offered by the Defendant in support of his motions were considered by the Court in formulating the original sentence Defendant seeks to modify.

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

Id. Id. 6. Defendant has requested that he be allowed to participate in Reentry Court which the Court will GRANT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Francis J. Jones, Jr. Francis J. Jones, Jr., Judge cc: Original to Prothonotary James McCloskey, Deputy Attorney General Eric Lloyd, JTVCC, SBI 00284809

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.