Stokes v. State

Supreme Court of the State of Delaware · 2025 · Criminal Law

Criminal LawSentence ModificationRule 35(b)Rule 35(b)sentence modificationrepetitive motion barabuse of discretionrecusal

Facts

In Criminal Action No. 1702003570, Stokes pleaded guilty to second-degree robbery and second-degree conspiracy. His robbery sentence included five years of imprisonment suspended after four years for six months of Level IV work release or home confinement, followed by twelve months of Level III probation, and his conspiracy sentence was suspended for twelve months of Level III probation. After filing several unsuccessful motions for reduction or modification of sentence, Stokes filed another motion in February 2025 seeking to change the Level IV portion of his sentence to Level III so he could request transfer of probation supervision to California upon release from Level V. The Superior Court denied the motion as a repetitive request for sentence reduction or modification.

Issue

Did the Superior Court abuse its discretion by denying Stokes's motion to modify the Level IV portion of his sentence to Level III as a repetitive Rule 35(b) motion? Did the court commit reversible error by not addressing recusal where Stokes asserted on appeal, without supporting facts, that the judge knew the victim?

Rule

The denial of a motion for modification of sentence is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b), the court will not consider repetitive requests for reduction of sentence, and there is no exception to that repetitive-motion bar; a motion is repetitive when it is preceded by an earlier Rule 35(b) motion, even if the later motion presents new arguments.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Wilmington, Devon Price was sentenced to prison followed by six months in a residential treatment program and then probation. He filed a Rule 35(b) motion asking the court to shorten his prison term, and the motion was denied. Four months later, he filed another Rule 35(b) motion seeking to replace the residential treatment portion with straight probation because he had obtained a job offer in Philadelphia.

How should the court most likely rule on Devon's second Rule 35(b) motion?

Explanation. Rule 35(b) bars repetitive requests for sentence reduction, and there is no exception to that bar. A motion is repetitive when it is preceded by an earlier Rule 35(b) motion, even if the later motion seeks a different modification of the sentence. (Derived from Stokes v. State (n.d.).)