State v. Byers, 101119 DESUP, 1102006786

• Opinion Judge: Vivian L. Medinilia Judge.
• Party Name: STATE OF DELAWARE v. KYLE BYERS, Defendant.
• Case Date: October 11, 2019
• Court: Delaware Superior Court

STATE OF DELAWARE

v.

KYLE BYERS, Defendant.

I.D. No. 1102006786

Superior Court of Delaware

October 11, 2019

ORDER

Vivian L. Medinilia Judge.

AND NOW TO WIT, this 11^th day of October 2019, upon consideration of Defendant's Motion for Reduction/Modification of Sentence, the sentence imposed upon Defendant, and the record in this case, it appears to the Court:

1. On January 20, 2012, at age eighteen, Defendant was sentenced for his first felony conviction following a home invasion that occurred in October of 2010. He accepted a plea offer and was sentenced for the offenses of Robbery First Degree, Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony (PFDCF), and Conspiracy Second Degree. Although there have been several corrections made to his sentence through his sentencing judge, the Honorable John A. Parkins, the most corrected sentence reflects that for the offense of Robbery First Degree, he received twenty years of Level V, suspended after five years, followed by probation to include six months at Level IV, and eighteen months at Level III. He received a sentence of five years at Level V for the firearm charge. For the Conspiracy Second offense, he received a suspended two years of Level V for one year at Level II. In sum, he received ten years of incarceration followed by transitioning levels of probation.

2. Defendant has made numerous requests to L Parkins to reduce or modify his Level V sentence.¹ Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b) provides that "[t]he court will not consider repetitive requests for reduction of sentence."² Unlike the 90-day jurisdictional limit with its "extraordinary circumstances" exception, the bar to repetitive motions has no exception. Instead, this bar is absolute and flatly "prohibits repetitive requests for reduction of sentence."^[3] J. Parkins denied his requests in 2012, 2014 and 2015.⁴

3. In the instant motion, Defendant does not seek to reduce his Level V time. Instead, he seeks to modify his eighteen months of Level III to six months. Under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b), "[t]he Court may.. . reduce the ... term or conditions of partial confinement or probation, at any time."⁵ Defendant is not time-barred because he does not seek to modify or reduce his Level V sentence, but rather requests a reduction of his probation. Defendant provides several reasons for his request. He indicates he was only eighteen years old at the time of the offense and has benefitted from educational opportunities while incarcerated. He participated in programming that has allowed him to "learn from his mistakes and prepare him for his future."⁶ He also states that he has received an offer of employment and that a lengthy probation may affect his opportunity to work.

5. Before sentenced in 2012, Defendant indicated to the Investigative Services Office, in...