green
Positive treatment
Hot · 85 in 5y
Issue: repetitive motion barDE ↗
Issue: Johnson motionDE ↗
Issue: Palmer motionDE ↗
Issue: Eighth Amendment claimDE ↗
Quoted verbatim 10×
130.9 score
G Cite
cited 7× by 5 distinct cases, 2020–2025 · 2 courts ·
…rule 35(b) does not set forth any exception to the repetitive motion bar.
at p. 144
⚠ not in text
cited 4× by 4 distinct cases, 2020–2021 ·
…superior court rule of criminal procedure 35(b) provides no authority for a reduction or suspension of the mandatory portion of a substantive statutory minimum sentence.
at p. 145
⚠ not in text
Topic ↗
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases, 2022–2023 ·
…was repetitive, which also precluded its consideration by the superior court.
at p. 144
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2017 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2017
2021
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
State v. Jackson
(2×)
rule 35(b) does not set forth any exception to the repetitive motion bar.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Jackson v. State
rule 35(b) does not set forth any exception to the repetitive motion bar.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
King v. State
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
rule 35(b) does not set forth any exception to the repetitive motion bar.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Bowman v. State
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
a motion is 'repetitive' as that term is used in rule 35(b) when it is preceded by an earlier rule 35(b) motion, even if the subsequent motion raises new arguments. rule 35(b) does not set forth any exception to the repetitive motion bar.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Ott v. State
a motion is 'repetitive' as that term is used in rule 35(b) when it is preceded by an earlier rule 35(b) motion, even if the subsequent motion raises new arguments.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Belfield v. State
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
a motion is 'repetitive' as that term is used in rule 35(b) when it is preceded by an earlier rule 35(b) motion, even if the subsequent motion raises new arguments. rule 35(b) does not set forth any exception to the repetitive motion bar.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Gladden v. State
a motion is 'repetitive' as that term is used in rule 35(b) when it is preceded by an earlier rule 35(b) motion, even if the subsequent motion raises new arguments.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Dula v. State
section 4217 is the appropriate mechanism through which an offender may pursue a sentence modification based upon rehabilitation.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
West v. State
section 4217 is the appropriate mechanism through which a defendant may pursue a sentence modification based upon rehabilitation.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Hammond
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
rule 35(b) is not the proper vehicle for seeking modification based on rehabilitation. . . section 4217 is the appropriate mechanism through which a defendant may pursue a sentence modification based upon rehabilitation.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dale v. State
We nevertheless affirm the Superior Court’s denial of Dale’s motion for sentence modification on the independent and alternative basis that it was an impermissible 2 State v. Culp, 152 A.3d 141, 144 (Del. 2016). 3 Del.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Washington
Apr. 15, 2015). 9 State v. Culp, 152 A.3d 141, 145 (Del. 2016) (internal quotations omitted) (quoting Diaz, 2015 WL 1741768 , at *2). 10 Culp, 152 A.3d at 145–46; State v. Liket, 2002 WL 31133101 , at *2 (Del.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Brown
R. 35(b). 7 State v. Culp, 152 A.3d 141, 144 (Del. 2016). 8 See D.I. 15 (Motion for Sentence Reduction), D.I. 16 (Order Denying Motion for Sentence Reduction). 2
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Ford
R. 35(b). 9 State v. Culp, 152 A.3d 141, 144 (Del. 2016). 10 See Motion for Modification (D.I. 41); Order Denying Motion for Modification (D.I. 42). 2
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Smith
R. 35(b). 10 State v. Culp, 152 A.3d 141, 144 (Del. 2016). 11 Id. 2 6.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Richmond
R. 35(b). 8 State v. Culp, 152 A.3d 141, 144 (Del. 2016). 9 List: motion dated November 12, 2014 (D.I.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Goddard
(2×)
Ct. Dec. 16, 2014); State v. Culp, 152 A.3d 141, 145-47 (Del. 2016) (instructing that this Court cannot ignore the Rule 35’s plain language, its procedural bars and requirements, or established precedent interpreting the rule). 6 Redden, 111 A.3d at 607 (internal citations omitted). 7 Sample v. State, 2012 WL 193761 , at *1 (Del.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bowers v. State
Sept. 13, 2024) (dismissing Bowers’ untimely appeal of the Superior Court’s denial of his motion for sentence review); Bowers v. State, 2018 WL 921641 , at *1 (Del. 15, 2018) (affirming the Superior Court’s denial of Bowers’ first motion for postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61) 3 State v. Culp, 152 A.3d 141, 144 (Del. 2016). 4 Id. 2 (5) In his opening brief, Bowers argues that his motion for sentence modification was not untimely or repetitive.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Guilford
Apr. 15, 2015). 64 State v. Culp, 152 A.3d 141, 145 (Del. 2016) (quoting Diaz, 2015 WL 1741768 , at *2) (internal quotations omitted). 65 Super.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Stokes v. State
PROC. 35(b). 4 State v. Culp, 152 A.3d 141, 144 (Del. 2016). 5 Barrall v. State, 2019 WL 1787310 , at *1 (Del.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Naisho
Scott, Jr. cc: Original to Prothonotary Joseph S. Grubb, DAG Vanessa Naisho, Defendant 11 State v. Culp, 152 A.3d 141, 144 (Del. 2016); see also Valentine v. State, 2014 WL 7894374 , at *2 (Del.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Gattis v. State
Aug. 19, 2014). 6 Id. 7 Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998). 8 State v. Culp, 152 A.3d 141, 147 (Del.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Arroyo-Herrera
Apr. 15, 2015). 7 State v. Culp, 152 A.3d 141, 145 (Del. 2016) (internal quotations omitted) (quoting Diaz, 2015 WL 1741768 , at *2). 2 could have been presented at sentencing, exemplary conduct or successful rehabilitation while incarcerated does not constitute “extraordinary circumstances.” 8 The Court does not find the existence of any extraordinary circumstances in connection with Defendant’s motion.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Runyon
Super.). 18 State v. Culp, 152 A.3d 141, 145 (Del. 2016)(quoting State v. Lewis, 797 A.2d 1198, 1205 (Del. 2002)(Steele, J., dissenting))(cleaned up). 19 Culp, 152 A.3d at 145–46; State v. Liket, 2002 WL 31133101 , at *2 (Del.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Waterman
Mar. 1, 2024). 14 State v. Culp, 152 A.3d 141, 144 (Del. 2016); see also Valentine v. State, 2014 WL 7894374 , at *2 (Del.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Mitchell
(2×)
Super. 2019) (citations omitted). 28 State v. Culp, 152 A.3d 141, 145 (Del. 2016) (quoting State v. Diaz, 2015 WL 1741768 , 6 13.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Dillard
Ct. Dec. 16, 2014); State v. Culp, 152 A.3d 141, 145-47 (Del. 2016) (instructing that this Court cannot ignore the Rule 35’s plain language, its procedural bars and requirements, or established precedent interpreting the rule). 31 Culp, 152 A.3d at 145 ; Redden, 111 A.3d at 608–09. 32 Culp, 152 A.3d at 144 ; Redden, 111 A.3d 608–09. 33 State v. Wenzke, 2023 WL 3676894 , at *4 (Del Super.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Lashley
Apr. 15, 2015). 30 State v. Culp, 152 A.3d 141, 145 (Del. 2016) (quoting Diaz, 2015 WL 1741768 , at *2) (internal quotations omitted). 31 See 11 Del.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Dillard
Ct. Dec. 16, 2014); State v. Culp, 152 A.3d 141, 145-47 (Del. 2016) (instructing that this Court cannot ignore the Rule -9- (22) As our Supreme Court and this Court have consistently held, Rule 35(b) prohibits consideration of repetitive requests for sentence reduction or modification.29 There is no exception to the repetitive-motion bar.30 “And a motion is repetitive under Rule 35(b) whenever it is preceded by an earlier Rule 35(b) motion, even if the subsequent motion raises new arguments or suggests somewhat different relief.”31 (23) Accordingly, the Court must DENY Mr. Dillard’s seco…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Lloyd
R. 35(b). 7 State v. Culp, 152 A.3d 141, 144 (Del. 2016). 8 D.I. 56 (Def’s first Rule 35(b) motion). 9 Id. denied that motion on April 14, 2023. 10 Thus, under Rule 35(b), Defendant’s motion is repetitive and cannot be considered by the Court. 5.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Herkins
Aug. 14, 2024), citing State v. Culp, 152 A.3d 141, 144 (Del. 2016); State v. Velez, 2024 WL 885435 , at *2 (Del.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Brown
Rennie, Judge 8 A Rule 35(b) motion “is not the proper vehicle for seeking modification based on rehabilitation.” State v. Culp, 152 A.3d 141, 146 (Del. 2016).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Wilson
Apr. 11, 2018)) (“The burden is upon the movant to establish cause to modify a lawfully imposed sentence.”). 11 State v. Culp, 152 A.3d 141, 146 (Del. 2016).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Ushler
Ct. Dec. 16, 2014); State v. Culp, 152 A.3d 141, 145-47 (Del. 2016) (instructing that this Court cannot ignore the Rule 35’s plain language, its procedural bars and requirements, or established precedent interpreting the rule). 19 Culp, 152 A.3d at 145 ; Redden, 111 A.3d at 608–09. 20 Culp, 152 A.3d at 144 ; Redden, 111 A.3d 608–09. -5- somewhat different relief.” 21 Accordingly, the Court must DENY this Rule 35(b) motion for sentence reduction as repetitive. 22 SO ORDERED this 14th day of August, 2024. /s/ Paul R.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. King
Mar. 24, 2004)(“motion was repetitive, which also precluded its consideration by the Superior Court”). 3 State v. Culp, 152 A.3d 141, 144 (Del. 2016); see also Valentine v. State, 106 A.2d 1050 (table), 2014 WL 7894374 , at *2 (Del. 2014)(describing a second Criminal Rule 35(b) motion that raised a new argument as “untimely and repetitive”). 3 9.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Lewis
(2×)
R. 35(b). 10 State v. Culp, 152 A.3d 141, 144 (Del. 2016). he raises no new arguments, except a desire to reduce his level V time, as previously requested in his previously filed Rule 35(b) motions in September and October of 2022. 11 Thus, Defendant’s request is barred as repetitive.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Ross
(2×)
Medinilla Judge oc: Prothonotary cc: Defendant John S. Taylor, Deputy Attorney General Gregory Smith, Deputy Attorney General Investigative Services 16 State v. Culp, 152 A.3d 141, 144 (Del. 2016). 17 Thomas v. State, 812 A.2d 900 , 2002 WL 31681804 , at *1 (Del. 2002) (Table).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Chamberlain
(2×)
R. 35(b). 12 State v. Culp, 152 A.3d 141, 144 (Del. 2016). 13 See D.I. 17; D.I. 20; D.I. 26; D.I. 29; D.I. 31. 14 Culp, 152 A.3d at 145 (reversing the Superior Court’s decision to grant the defendant’s motion for modification where the motion was repetitive and untimely). 3
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Guzman
However, “Rule 35(b) is not the proper vehicle for seeking modification based on rehabilitation.” State v. Culp, 152 A.3d 141, 146 (Del. 2016).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Freeman v. State
C. § 4217 by requesting the release of the infirm from Level 5 incarceration,”5 but does 1 State v. Culp, 152 A.3d 141, 144 (Del. 2016). 2 Id. 3 See, e.g., Richmond v. State, 2016 WL 6092472, at *1 (Del.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Hicks v. State
In addition, Hicks has not shown that when he serves his Level IV time he will be required to perform work 1 State v. Culp, 152 A.3d 141, 144 (Del. 2016). 2 Id. 3 Super.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Russell
(2×)
Ct. Crim R. 35(b). 12 Id. (emphasis added). 13 State v. Culp, 152 A.3d 141, 144 (Del. 2016). 14 Thomas v. State, 812 A.2d 900 , 2002 WL 31681804 , at *1 (Del. 2002) (TABLE); see also Jenkins v. State, 954 A.2d 910 , 2008 WL 2721536 , at *1 (Del. 2008) (TABLE) (affirming the Superior Court’s denial of defendant’s Rule 35(b) motion for modification where Rule 35(b) “prohibits the filing of repetitive sentence reduction motions.”); Morrison v. State, 846 A.2d 238 , 2004 WL 716773 , at *2 (Del. 2004) (TABLE) (finding that defendant’s Rule 35(b) motion for modification “was repetitive, …
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Piatt, Jr.
R. 35(b). 11 State v. Culp, 152 A.3d 141, 144 (Del. 2016). (reversing the Superior Court's decision to grant the defendant's motion for modification where the motion was repetitive and untimely). 3
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Smith
Smith (SBI# 00619570) 6 State v. Culp, 152 A.3d 141, 144 (Del. 2016). 7 D.I. 48; D.I. 100; D.I. 102, 103. 2
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Smith v. State
Rule 35(b) also provides that the Superior Court will not consider repetitive motions for sentence reduction. 1 State v. Culp, 152 A.3d 141, 144 (Del. 2016). 2 Id. 2 (5) In her opening brief, Smith primarily challenges the Superior Court’s denial of her motion for transcripts at State expense.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Miller
(2×)
R. 35(b). 13 State v. Culp, 152 A.3d 141, 144 (Del. 2016). 14 See Crim ID No. 1909007362, D.I. 8. 15 Culp, 152 A.3d at 145 (reversing the Superior Court’s decision to grant the defendant’s motion for modification where the motion was repetitive and untimely). 3
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Martin
(2×)
R. 35(b). 9 Id. 10 State v. Culp, 152 A.3d 141, 144 (Del. 2016). 2 bar applies to the request for reduction or modification of a term of partial confinement or probation. 11 Rule 35 does not allow the Court to use its discretion to ignore this bar. 12 Thus, Defendant’s request to reduce his sentence to twelve years upon completion of the programs is barred as repetitive. 5.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Lovato
Ct. Mar. 7, 2023) (citing State v. Culp, 152 A.3d 141, 144 (Del. 2016); State v. Redden, 111 A.3d 602, 608-09 (Del.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Smith
(2×)
R. 35(b). 8 Id. (emphasis added). 9 State v. Culp, 152 A.3d 141, 144 (Del. 2016). 10 See Teat v. State, 31 A.3d 77 , 2011 WL 4839042 , at *1 (Del. 2011) (Table); State v. Weidlow, 2015 WL 1142583 , at *1–2 (Del.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Wenzke
(3×)
Ct. 2019) (quoting Fountain v. State, 139 A.3d 837 , 842 n.20 (Del. 2016)). 21 Id. 22 See State v. Culp, 152 A.3d 141, 145-46 (Del. 2016) (collecting cases) (participation in educational and rehabilitative programs does not constitute “extraordinary circumstances” for purposes Rule 35(b)); Redden, 111 A.3d at 607-08 . 23 Super.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ronald EVANS, Below-Appellant
v.
STATE of Delaware, Below-Appellee
v.
STATE of Delaware, Below-Appellee
No. 421, 2016.
Supreme Court of Delaware.
Dec 7, 2016.
Published
Citer courts: Superior Court of Delaware (1)
Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware, Cr. ID Nos. 0808023433 and 0807012992
DISMISSED.