State v. Walker ( 2023 )


Menu:
  •               IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    STATE OF DELAWARE                            )
    )
    )
    ) I.D. Nos.   2103000123
    v.                                    )             2010012972
    )             2109006816
    )             2111011522
    DAVON WALKER,                                )
    )
    Defendant.            )
    ORDER
    Submitted: November 9, 2022
    Decided: February 27, 2023
    AND NOW TO WIT, this 27th day of February, 2023, upon consideration
    of Davon Walker (“Defendant”)’s Motion for Modification/Reduction of Sentence
    under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35, the sentence imposed upon the
    Defendant, and the record in this case, it appears to the Court that:
    1.       Defendant actively participated in criminal street gang activity with
    the knowledge that its members engaged in or had engaged in a pattern of criminal
    activity which included various acts of murder, firearm offenses, assault, first degree
    and robberies.1
    1
    See Crim Id. N210300123, D.I. 37.
    2.       For his participation in the gang activity, Defendant was indicted on
    three counts of Murder First Degree with respect to his role in the killing of three
    men: nineteen-year-old Naithan Gryzbowski, shot in September of 2020, thirty-year
    old Tommier Dendy, shot one month later in October of 2020, and twenty-nine-year-
    old, Eddie Green, also shot five days later.2
    3.       Through heavily negotiated plea discussions, Defendant accepted and
    pled guilty to three counts of Murder Second Degree, one count of Conspiracy First
    Degree, and one count of Gang Participation. 3 The State and Defendant, through
    counsel, agreed to a recommended unsuspended sentence of fifty-three years.
    Accordingly, on August 26, 2022, this Court imposed the recommended sentences.4
    4.       On November 9, 2022, Defendant filed this pending Motion for
    Sentence Modification/Reduction, asking the Court to “suspend non-minimum
    mandatory Level V sentence for completion of educational and rehabilitative
    programs.”5 In support, he asserts that he is remorseful; he has put efforts into
    education; his former employer before incarceration wants him to return; and he was
    2
    Id.
    3
    Crim Id. N210300123, D.I. 1.
    4
    Defendant was sentenced as follows: (1) for each count of Murder Second Degree—to forty
    years at Level V, suspended after fifteen years (minimum mandatory), (2) for Conspiracy First
    Degree—to five years at Level V, and (3) Gang Participation—to three years at Level V. Crim
    Id. N210300123, D.I. 40.
    5
    Id.
    2
    sentenced to Level V without any conditions—such as enrollment in certain
    rehabilitative programs—that could help him to become a better person.6
    5.       Defendant’s pending Motion is his first Motion for Sentence
    Modification and was filed within 90 days of sentencing. Therefore, Defendant is
    not time-barred. Under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b), the Court may reduce
    a sentence of imprisonment on a motion made within 90 days after the sentence is
    imposed. 7 The rule “allows for a reduction of sentence without regard to the
    existence of a legal defect.”8 Thus, relief under Rule 35(b) is within the sound
    discretion of the Sentencing Court.9 Accordingly, a timely and non-repetitive Rule
    35(b) motion is “essentially a ‘plea for leniency.’”10
    6.       Defendant was facing life in prison on three charges of Murder First
    Degree. He was extended a plea offer and accepted the same with an agreed upon
    recommendation of fifty-three years of incarceration, with the understanding that
    each count of Murder Second Degree carried a minimum mandatory sentence of
    fifteen years each. After an appropriate colloquy with Defendant in open court, the
    Court determined that he understood the nature of the charges to which he was
    6
    Id.
    7
    Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b).
    8
    State v. Lewis, 
    797 A.2d 1198
    , 1201 (Del. 2002).
    9
    
    Id.
    10
    
    Id. at 1202
     (quoting United States v. Maynard, 
    485 F.2d 247
    , 248 (9th Cir. 1973)).
    3
    pleading guilty, and the consequences of his plea.11 Remorse, educational or
    employment opportunities, etc., do not persuade the Court to reduce the Level V
    sentences. The sentence remains appropriate for all the reasons previously stated on
    the record at the time of sentencing.
    IT    IS    SO     ORDERED         that   Defendant’s   Motion   for   Sentence
    Modification/Reduction is DENIED.
    /s/ Vivian L. Medinilla
    Judge Vivian L. Medinilla
    oc:       Prothonotary
    cc:       Defendant
    Investigative Services
    11
    See Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R.11(c)(1).
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2103000123 2010012972 2109006816 2111011522

Judges: Medinilla J.

Filed Date: 2/27/2023

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/27/2023