State v. Hopson-El

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE, )
)
v. ) ID Nos. 2305015737
) 2308007882
JEWAAN HOPSON-EL, )
)
Defendant. )

ORDER

On this 7th day of April, 2025, upon consideration of Defendant Jewaan

Hopson-El’s (“Defendant”) pro se Motion for Sentence Modification (the “Motion”)

made pursuant to Superior Court Rule of Criminal Procedure (“Rule”) 35(b), 1 the

sentence imposed upon Defendant, and the record in this case, it appears to the Court

that:

1. On April 8, 2024, Defendant pleaded guilty to (1) Possession of

Controlled Substance with Intent to Distribute; (2) Non-Compliance with Bond

Conditions; (3) Resisting Arrest; and (4) Carrying a Concealed Deadly Weapon.2

On May 6, 2024, the Court sentenced Defendant to a total of 12 months of of

unsuspended time at Level V, followed by six months at Level IV (Work Release),

followed by 18 months at Level III.3

1
D.Is. 2305015737-14, 2308007882-19 (the Motion).
2
D.Is. 2305015737-10, 2308007882-15 (Plea Agreement).
3
A Corrected Sentence Order was issued on May 9, 2024. See D.I. 2305015737-13 (Corrected
Sentence Order). Defendant received the following sentence: (1) Possession with Intent to
Distribute, 15 years of Level V supervision, suspended after 12 months for 12 months at Level IV
Work Release, suspended after six months for 18 months at Level III; (2) Non-Compliance with
2. On January 8, 2025, Defendant filed this Motion, in which he asked the

Court to suspend his Level IV Work Release for Level III probation.4 Defendant

requests the modification because (1) he was moved to Sussex County to serve his

work release even though he is from Wilmington; (2) he has no job opportunities in

Sussex County; (3) his family has to drive an hour and a half to visit him; and (4) he

believes that the Work Release does not help him return to society.5

3. When considering a motion for modification of sentence, this Court

addresses any applicable procedural bars before turning to the merits.6 This Motion

is Defendant’s first motion for modification of sentence, so it is not barred as a

repetitive request.7 It is also not subject to Rule 35(b)’s 90-day limit because it does

not seek to modify a sentence of imprisonment. 8 The Motion is thus procedurally

proper.

4. Defendant’s Motion nonetheless fails on the merits. The Level IV

Work Release sentence imposed is an appropriate transition sentence that is integral

to the Court’s overall “sentencing scheme” or “plan.” 9 The location for his Work

Bond Conditions, five years of Level V supervision, suspended immediately for 18 months at
Level III; (3) Resisting Arrest, one year of Level V supervision, suspended immediately for 12
months at Level III. See id.
4
D.Is. 2305015737-14, 2308007882-19
5
See id.
6
State v. Redden, 111 A.3d 602, 606 (Del. Super. 2015).
7
See Gladden v. State, 2020 WL 773290, at *2 (Del. Feb. 17, 2020) (“The Superior Court will not
consider repetitive motions for sentence reduction.”).
8
See Sup. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b).
9
See State v. Redden, 111 A.3d at 609.
2
Release is left to the Department of Corrections’ determination, and the Court will

not micro-manage the Department.10

5. Defendant’s sentence is appropriate for all the reasons stated at

sentencing. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Sentence Modification is hereby

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Sheldon K Rennie, Judge

Original to Prothonotary

Cc: Jewann Hopson-El (SBI#00548880)

10
See State v. Bolling, 2021 WL 2408426, at *4 (Del. Super. June 14, 2021) (denying request to
modify Level IV placement because “[the defendant’s] placement and program assignment for
completion of his Level IV term is a matter the Court has left to the DOC to determine given his
circumstances when he has finished the Level V portion of his sentence.”).
3