State v. Gordon

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE, )
)
v. ) ID Nos. 2308008915, 2201000032,
) 2201007423, 2202001715,
) 2108015289, and
DAVON M. GORDON, ) 2107009883
Defendant. )

Submitted: February 5, 2026
Decided: March 16, 2026

Upon Defendant Davon M. Gordon’s
Motion for Credit Time,
DEEMED MOOT.

Upon Defendant Davon M. Gordon’s
Motion for Sentence Reduction or Modification,
DENIED.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the Defendant Davon M. Gordon’s pro se

Motion for Sentence Reduction (D.I. 41-43, 49)1 and subsequent Motion for

Credit Time (D.I. 52), the many supplements thereto that he has filed (D.I. 60,

74, 82, 84-86) as well as, the record in this matter, it appears to the Court that:

(1) The history of Mr. Gordon’s offenses was recently synopsized

by the Delaware Supreme Court when it affirmed his convictions and

1
For ease of reference, unless noted otherwise, the Court cites only the docket entry
numbers from Case ID No. 2308008915.
cumulative sentence:

Over two years, Davon Gordon amassed numerous domestic
violence-related charges. He resolved all of the charges by
pleading guilty to five of the indicted counts and was placed
on probation. After sentencing, he incurred new criminal
charges and was charged with three violations of probation—
all involving the same person. He resolved the new domestic
violence-related criminal charges by pleading guilty to one
Act of Intimidation. The court sentenced him to eight years in
prison, all suspended for decreasing levels of supervision.

By pleading guilty to an Act of Intimidation, [Mr.]
Gordon violated his prior probation conditions—not to
commit a new criminal offense. The Superior Court
sentenced him to three years of Level V custody for violating
probation followed by decreasing levels of supervision.2

(2) To be more specific about Mr. Gordon’s cumulative sentence, it

was structured as follows: Act of Intimidation (IN23-09-1211)—8 years at

Level V, suspended in whole for 8 years at Level IV-DOC Discretion,

suspended after 6 months for 18 months at Level III with GPS monitoring;3

VOP-Non-Compliance with Bond (Felony) (VN22-089-1479-01)—3 years at

Level V; VOP-Terroristic Threatening (VN21-09-0422-01)—343 days at

Level V, suspended in whole for 1 year at Level III probation with GPS

monitoring; VOP-Non-Compliance with Bond (Felony) (VN22-089-1481-

01)—5 years at Level V, suspended in whole for 1 year at Level III probation

2
Gordon v. State, 2025 WL 1923649, at *1 (Del. July 14, 2025).
3
D.I. 32 (Sentence Order).

-2-
with GPS monitoring; VOP-Assault Third Degree (VN22-089-1483-01)—

1 year at Level V, suspended in whole for 1 year at Level III probation with

GPS monitoring; and VOP-Non-Compliance with Bond (Felony) (VN22-

089-1480-01)—5 years at Level V, suspended in whole for 1 year at Level III

probation with GPS monitoring.4 The effective date of the VOP sentences

was July 23, 2023;5 the effective date of the Act of Intimidation sentence was

May 17, 2024.6 So, Mr. Gordon would serve his unsuspended term of

imprisonment for the VOPs first, then move onto the Level IV term for the

Act of Intimidation, followed by the concurrent Level III-GPS terms of both.

(3) When imposing its sentence the Court expressly noted:

To the extent this VOP sentence, in combination with that
imposed [for the new Act of Intimidation conviction], may
exceed any applicable SENTAC guidelines the Court notes
the following aggravating circumstances: (1) this is just one
more offense that seems a persistent pattern of behavior by
the Defendant that defies specific mandates by the Court
regarding no contact and other aspects of the Defendant’s
conduct and behavior; (2) the Defendant continues to
victimize Ms. [Victim] in one way or another; and (3) he
demonstrates no remorse, insight, or willingness to change,
so it seems a punitive sentence of full incarceration may be
all that protects the victim or may get the Defendant’s
attention. The Defendant has shown a lack of amenability to
any sanction less than incarceration. 7

4
D.I. 37, ID No. 2108015289 (VOP Sentence Order).
5
VOP Sentence Order, at 1.
6
Sentence Order, at 1.
7
VOP Sentence Order, at 4; Sentence Order, at 4 (containing mirror note).

-3-
(4) Mr. Gordon first docketed a direct appeal of his conviction, VOP

adjudication, and resultant sentences.8 He followed with a duplicate appeal.9

While those two actions were pending at different stages in the Supreme

Court, Mr. Gordon docketed his first Rule 35(b) filing and related applications

in this Court.10 He quickly followed with a duplicate of that Rule 35(b)

application.11 Through both, he requested reduction of his imprisonment.12

(5) Mr. Gordon then filed a separate “Motion for Credit Time

Previously Served.”13 This too was docketed while appeals were still pending.

(6) The Court deferred decision on the Rule 35 applications during

the pendency of Mr. Gordon’s then-active appeals.14 All of those appeals

have now been resolved15 and Mr. Gordon has since supplemented his

8
See Not. of Appeal, Davon M. Gordon v. State of Delaware, No. 225, 2024 (Del. filed
June 7, 2024).
9
See Supp. Not. of Appeal, Davon M. Gordon v. State of Delaware, No. 312, 2024 (Del.
filed Aug. 5, 2024).
10
Because Mr. Gordon filed these pro se applications during the 30-day appeal period in
which he was, under the Delaware Supreme Court’s rules, still represented by counsel, the
Court—in accord with the decision in Jones v. State, 2020 WL 2280509 (Del. May 7, 2020)
and Criminal Rule 47—referred these initial filings to his counsel. D.I. 44.
11
D.I. 49.
12
See D.I. 41 and 49.
13
D.I. 52.
14
D.I. 55, 76, and 83.
15
See Gordon v. State, 2025 WL 1923649, at *1 (Del. July 14, 2025); Gordon v. Parker,
2026 WL 221289 (Del. Jan. 27, 2026).

-4-
Rule 35 filings as anticipated.16

(7) Mr. Gordon is now serving the Level IV term of his sentence,

thus his application for reduction of imprisonment and for additional Level V

credit (D.I. 52) is MOOT. Thus, he has amended his Rule 35 prayers to

request modification of his Level IV and III terms.17

(8) Specifically, Mr. Gordon asks that the Court eliminate the

remainder of his Level IV term, “transfer [his] probation to California or New

Jersey,” and remove the GPS requirement.18 Mr. Gordon believes that

immediate relocation and these modifications will: (a) allow him to find

employment; (b) be more beneficial to his family; and (c) assist him in

receiving treatment for the mental health issues he now recognizes he has.19

(9) Mr. Gordon’s motion seeking a reduction or modification of

sentence is governed by Superior Court’s Criminal Rule 35(b).20 The Court

16
D.I. 82 and 84-86.
17
D.I. 82 and 84-86.
18
D.I. 85 and 86.
19
Id.
20
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b) (providing that, if certain requirements are met, the Court
may reduce a sentence of imprisonment or modify the terms of partial confinement or
probation on an inmate’s motion); Jones v. State, 2003 WL 21210348, at *1 (Del. May 22,
2003) (“There is no separate procedure, other than that which is provided under Superior
Court Criminal Rule 35, to reduce or modify a sentence.”). See State v. Comeger, 2015
WL 74260 (Del. Super. Ct. Jan. 5, 2015) (this Court examines motions to reduce or modify
the terms of VOP sentences under Criminal Rule 35(b)); see also Sample v. State, 2012
WL 193761 (Del. Jan. 23, 2012) (provisions of Rule 35(b) applied on appellate review of
a ruling on a motion to reduce the term of a VOP sentence).

-5-
may consider such a request “without presentation, hearing or argument.”21

When considering motions for sentence modification, this Court addresses

any applicable procedural bars before turning to the merits.22 As this is a first

application for modification of Mr. Gordon’s terms of partial confinement or

probation, there are no bars to consideration of that request under Rule

35(b).23

(10) The Court has fully reviewed Mr. Gordon’s prolix filings, the

complete record of his case, his prior supervision history, and all sentencing

information available.

(11) As to Mr. Gordon’s request that the Court “order” transfer of his

probation to another state, that is not a form of relief available under this

Court’s Criminal Rule 35. Any request to relocate to New Jersey, California,

or any other state while on probation must be made by Mr. Gordon through

the Delaware Department of Correction at the appropriate time. And such a

“transfer” of supervision can only occur if the other state’s correctional

21
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b).
22
State v. Redden, 111 A.3d 602, 606 (Del. Super. Ct. 2015).
23
See Teat v. State, 2011 WL 4839042, at *1 (Del. Oct. 12, 2011) (finding this Court
erred in holding that motion for modification of Level IV time was subject to ninety-day
period but could be affirmed because motion was repetitive); State v. Bennett, 2015 WL
1746239, at *2 (Del. Super. Ct. Apr. 13, 2015) (bar to repetitive motions is applicable to
requests for modification of a Level IV term of a sentence).

-6-
authorities agree to take his case.24 Put simply, the Court cannot “order” such

a transfer.25 Nor will the Court modify any condition of its sentence that

Mr. Gordon suggests may interfere with his desire to seek such a transfer.

(12) The six-month unsuspended Level IV term (with its required

completion of any program or placement determined appropriate by the

Department of Correction) and the decreasing Level III supervision that

follows are components of Mr. Gordon’s sentence integral to the Court’s

overall “sentencing scheme” or “plan.”26

(13) The Court was (and remains) particularly concerned with his

serious and repeated failures at community supervision. In turn, the Court

has found that a term of Level IV supervision that flows to a GPS-monitored

Level III term of supervision will best balance his treatment needs and victim

24
See DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 4358 (2018) (providing process for probationers to apply
under the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision for interstate transfer into or
from the State of Delaware).
25
See e.g. State v. Dalrymple, 2024 WL 1110502, at *2 (Del. Super. Ct. Mar. 14, 2024)
(noting in order denying Rule 35 motion that it is the Department of Correction, not this
Court, that oversees applications for out-of-state transfers of probation); State v. Herkins,
2024 WL 4259286, at *1 (Del. Super. Ct. Sept. 20, 2024) (explaining that prior Rule 35(b)
motion was denied because transfers of probation to another state are within the authority
of the Department of Correction).
26
Defoe v. State, 750 A.2d 1200, 1202 (Del. 2000). Moreover, in your case, some period
of partial confinement or probation is required by Delaware law DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, §
4202(l) (2018) (providing that whenever one’s sentence includes at least one year of
incarceration, that term of imprisonment must be followed by at least six months of quasi-
incarceration and/or supervised probation to facilitate the inmate’s transition back into
society).

-7-
and community safety concerns. Too, given the unique circumstances of

Mr. Gordon’s case and the risks he has and still poses, “it is wholly

appropriate for the Court to leave such classification and placement decisions

to the Department of Correction”27 for completion of those terms.

NOW, THEREFORE, Davon M. Gordon’s application for credit time

(D.I. 52) is DEEMED MOOT. As to Mr. Gordon’s Rule 35(b) applications,

the Court found (and remains convinced) that a highly structured term of

Level IV followed by Level III with GPS monitoring term will best facilitate

his re-integration while assuring necessary supervision and support.28

Mr. Gordon has not proven that he is equipped to do well in the community

without such structure. And more so, without such structure he has

demonstrated that will not abide by the no-contact and other strict conditions

the Court has imposed. Accordingly, as an exercise its discretion under Rule

35(b),29 the Court DENIES Mr. Gordon’s many requests (D.I. 41-43, 49, 60,

27
See State v. Rojas, 2020 WL 522332, at *2, n.16 (Del. Super Ct. Sep. 1, 2020) (citing
Samans v. Dept. of Correction, 2015 WL 1421411, at *2 (Del. Mar. 27, 2015)).
28
See Sentence Order, 2-4 (noting the Court’s concerns and appropriate conditions for
Mr. Gordon’s continued treatment and supervsion).
29
Rondon v. State, 2008 WL 187964, at *1 (Del. Jan. 15, 2008) (“The merit of a sentence
modification under Rule 35(b) is directed to the sound discretion of the Superior Court.”);
Kiser v. State, 2010 WL 5141242, at *1 (Del. Dec. 10, 2010) (same for motion that seeks
reduction or modification of partial confinement).

-8-
74, 82, 84-86) to in any way reduce or modify the Level IV and III terms of

his sentence.

SO ORDERED,

/s/ Paul R. Wallace

Paul R. Wallace, Judge
Original to Prothonotary

cc: Mr. Davon M. Gordon, pro se
Christina M. Davis, Deputy Attorney General
Michael J. Gordon, Deputy Attorney General
Brian J. Chapman, Esquire
Investigative Services Office

-9-