Summary
The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Joshua B. Gladden’s second motion for sentence modification. The Court held that the motion was repetitive under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b), and that Gladden had not provided additional information warranting modification of the internet-related conditions of his sentence. The Court also rejected his claim that the restrictions deprived him of meaningful access to the courts.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Superior Court abused its discretion by denying Gladden's second motion for sentence modification as repetitive and unsupported by additional information warranting modification.
- Whether Gladden established a right to internet access while incarcerated or showed that the internet restrictions deprived him of meaningful access to the courts.
Holdings
- The Superior Court did not abuse its discretion by denying Gladden's second motion for sentence modification as repetitive and because he provided no additional information meriting modification.
- Gladden failed to establish a right to internet access while incarcerated and failed to show that the internet restrictions deprived him of meaningful access to the courts.
Key quotations
“Under Rule 35(b), a motion for reduction of a sentence of imprisonment must be filed within ninety days of sentencing absent a showing of “extraordinary circumstances.”” (at 3)
“The Superior Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Gladden’s motion as repetitive and for a lack of additional information meriting sentence modification.” (at 4)
Factual background
In June 2018, Gladden pleaded guilty to four categories of child-related offenses and received substantial Level V sentences, with portions suspended for supervision. His sentencing order prohibited him from owning or possessing internet-capable electronic equipment and from accessing the internet through digital devices while incarcerated or on probation. In his second sentence-modification motion, he argued that the restrictions impeded rehabilitation applications, electronic communication, online classes, employment and banking, and legal work. He acknowledged that he had access to the prison law library and published case law, and his filing demonstrated access to legal materials.
Procedural history
Gladden pleaded guilty in the Superior Court to Dangerous Crime Against a Child, Unlawful Sexual Contact First Degree, and three counts of Dealing in Child Pornography. After sentencing, he filed a first motion for sentence modification, which the Superior Court denied and the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed. He then filed a second motion seeking modification of internet-related sentencing conditions; the Superior Court denied the motion as repetitive and unsupported by additional information warranting modification. The Supreme Court affirmed and granted the State's motion to affirm.