Delaware Superior Court Denies Motion to Modify Sentence

DE Superior Court Opinions

Filed March 12th, 2026

Detected March 13th, 2026

Summary

The Delaware Superior Court denied Michael J. Ford's motion to modify his sentence. The court found the motion to be repetitive under Superior Court Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b) and therefore could not consider its merits. The defendant's original sentence involved a period of work release.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The Delaware Superior Court, in an order dated March 12, 2026, denied Michael J. Ford's pro se motion to modify his sentence. The motion, filed under Rule 35(b), requested a change from a Level IV (Work Release) sentence to Level III (GPS) due to travel distance impacting recovery and employment. The court determined that the motion was repetitive, as Mr. Ford had previously requested a sentence modification, and therefore denied it without considering the specific arguments presented.

This ruling signifies that the court will strictly adhere to procedural rules regarding repetitive sentencing modification requests. For legal professionals and criminal defendants, this highlights the importance of understanding and complying with Rule 35(b) limitations. Failure to do so will result in denial of the motion, as demonstrated in this case, with no further recourse for the defendant on this specific request.

Source document (simplified)

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE STATE OF DELAWARE, ) ) v. ) ID Nos. 2112011168/2412005246 ) MICHAEL J. FORD, ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER On this 12th day of March, 2026, upon consideration of Michael J. Ford’s (“Defendant”) pro se Motion to Modify Sentence (the “Motion”) made pursuant to Superior Court Rule of Criminal Procedure (“Rule”) 35(b), the sentence imposed upon Defendant, and the record in this case, it appears to the Court that: 1. On November 6, 2025, the Court found Defendant in violation of his probation. Defendant was sentenced to one year and eight months at Supervision Level V, suspended for one year at Level IV (Work Release), suspended after six months for three months at Level III. 2. Defendant filed the Motion on December 1, 2025, requesting that the Court replace his Level IV (Work Release) sentence with Level III (GPS). Defendant contends that the travel distance between his residence (Middletown) and his work release (Georgetown) is interfering with his recovery and making it Docket Item (hereinafter “D.I.”) 62 (hereinafter “Mot.”). D.I. 61 (Sentence Order). Id. Mot. p. 3.

difficult to secure employment. In further support, Defendant represents that he has paid all court costs in full and has been admitted to the intensive outpatient treatment program at a Middletown-based behavioral health hospital. 3. The Court considers motions for modification of sentence under Rule 35(b). Before addressing the merits of a motion, the Court first considers the applicable procedural bars. 4. Rule 35(b) mandates that the Court will not consider repetitive requests for sentence reduction. A Rule 35(b) motion is considered repetitive even if the later motion raises new arguments. 5. Defendant has previously requested modification of his sentence. As mandated by Rule 35(b), this Motion is repetitive, and it cannot be considered by the Court. Hence, Defendant’s Motion is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Sheldon K. Rennie, Judge Id. at p. 2. Id. State v. Redden, 111 A.3d 602, 606 (Del. Super. 2015). Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b). State v. Culp, 152 A.3d 141, 144 (Del. 2016). See Motion for Modification (D.I. 41); Order Denying Motion for Modification (D.I. 42).