State v. Trotter

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE, )
)
v. ) ID Nos. 2410013842
) 1607007011
JOHN TROTTER, )
)
Defendant. )

ORDER

On this 27th day of May, 2026, upon consideration of John Trotter’s

(“Defendant”) pro se Motion for Modification and Termination of Probation (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 January 6, 2026, Defendant was found in violation of his probation.2

2. On that same date, the Court continued Defendant’s probation at Level

II and ordered him to complete a drug and alcohol abstinence program and a drug

and alcohol treatment program pursuant to 21 Del. C. § 4177(d)(9). 3

3. On February 25, 2026, Defendant filed the instant Motion requesting

that the Court modify his probation to reflect completion as of December 22, 2025

1
Docket Item (hereinafter “D.I.”) 9 (hereinafter “Mot.”) in Case No. 2410013842. All references
to the docket hereinafter are references to the docket in Case No. 2410013842.
2
Sentence Order (D.I. 8).
3
Id.
and order termination and discharge from probation supervision.4 The basis for this

request is that Defendant timely completed a drug and alcohol evaluation, but was

unable to register for DUI education classes due to the inclement weather on January

26, 2026. 5 Defendant’s concern is that his probation is now being extended solely

due to administrative scheduling delays.6

4. 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. 7 There are no applicable procedural bars, and thus the

Court considers the Motion on the merits.

5. The Motion is denied. Defendant’s sentence was appropriate at the time

of sentencing. The requirement that Defendant’s probation continue until

completion of a drug and alcohol treatment program is integral to the Court’s overall

“sentencing scheme” or “plan.”8 The Court imposed the sentence after a thorough

review of the crimes committed and the sentencing information available on the

record. The Court declines to recalibrate an appropriate sentence on the basis

provided.

4
Mot. p. 2.
5
Id.
6
Id.
7
State v. Redden, 111 A.3d 602, 606 (Del. Super. 2015).
8
Id. at 609.
2
6. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Sentence Modification is

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Sheldon K. Rennie, Judge

3