Summary
The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s denial of Gilbert Renn’s repetitive motion to modify his sentence. The Court held that the motion was filed beyond Rule 35(b)’s ninety-day limit and that Renn had not shown extraordinary circumstances. It also clarified that placement in Level IV home confinement remained within the Department of Correction’s discretion rather than being mandatory.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Superior Court abused its discretion by denying Renn's repetitive motion for sentence modification filed more than ninety days after sentencing.
- Whether the Superior Court's orders required the Department of Correction to place Renn in Level IV home confinement rather than leaving that placement to the Department's discretion.
Holdings
- The Superior Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Renn's motion because the motion was repetitive and was filed well beyond Rule 35(b)'s ninety-day deadline without a showing of extraordinary circumstances.
- The Superior Court's orders did not require Renn to be placed in Level IV home confinement; they permitted such placement only at the Department of Correction's discretion.
Key quotations
“Moreover, contrary to Renn’s contention, the Superior Court’s August 23, 2018 and March 6, 2019 orders both make clear that the court did not intend to require that Renn be placed at Level IV home confinement, rather than at Level V, but intended Level IV placement to be at the discretion of the Department of Correction.” (3)
Factual background
In May 2015, Gilbert Renn pleaded guilty to two counts of second-degree robbery arising from a series of bank robberies. In August 2015, the Superior Court sentenced him to thirteen years of Level V imprisonment, suspended after six years for two years of Level III probation; he was sentenced as a habitual offender on one charge. In 2018 and 2019, Renn sought to serve the final portion of his Level V sentence on Level IV home confinement based on personal and family health concerns, but the Superior Court stated that such placement remained within the Department of Correction's discretion.
Procedural history
Renn pleaded guilty to two counts of second-degree robbery and received an aggregate thirteen-year sentence, suspended after six years for two years of Level III probation. After filing multiple sentence-reduction or sentence-modification motions, he filed a sixth motion more than ninety days after sentencing, seeking Level IV home confinement for the final portion of his sentence. The Superior Court denied the motion and later clarified that Level IV home confinement was permissible at the Department of Correction's discretion, not mandatory. The Delaware Supreme Court granted the State's motion to affirm and affirmed.