State v. Gerleve
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE STATE OF DELAWARE, v. JAMES GERLEVE, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Date Submitted: Date Decided: ID No. 1807009040 February 18, 2021 May 5, 2021 ORDER Upon consideration of Defendant’s Motion for Modification of No Contact Order,1 the State’s response,2 statutory and decisional law, and the record in this case, IT APPEARS THAT: 1. On October 25, 2018, Defendant pled guilty to Second-Degree Assault.3 On March 8, 2019, the Court sentenced Defendant to 6 years at Level V, suspended after 6 months at Level V, for 6 months Level IV (Work Release), followed by 18 months at Level III, hold at Level V until space is available at Level IV (Work Release).4 The Court’s sentencing order also prohibited Defendant from 1 D.I. 18. D.I. 20. 3 D.I. 4. 4 D.I. 5. 2 “unauthorized contact” with Morgan or Baily Gerleve unless a Family Court order provided otherwise.5 2. On March 21, 2019, the Court issued a corrected sentencing order to reflect that Defendant would be held at Level III, not Level V, while awaiting Level IV (Work Release).6 The Court also removed the “unauthorized” language from the no-contact provision, clarifying that “Defendant shall have NO CONTACT with Morgan and Bailey Gerleve unless by Family Court order.”7 3. On December 10, 2019, the Court issued a modified sentencing order.8 That order modified the March 21, 2019 order reflect that the balance of Level IV (Work Release) would be suspended for 18 months at Level III.9 The no-contact provision remained in place.10 4. On January 28, 2021, Defendant filed the instant Motion for Modification of No Contact Order.11 In that Motion, Defendant asks the Court to remove the no-contact provision of his sentence, which would allow him to see his 5 Id. D.I. 7. 7 Id. 8 D.I. 10. 9 Id. 10 Id. 11 D.I. 18. 6 2 daughters.12 In support of his request, Defendant explains that he has completed domestic violence and parenting classes and has paid his fines in full.13 5. On February 18, 2021, the State filed its response to Defendant’s Motion.14 The State confirmed that Defendant has completed a Turning Point domestic violence treatment program.15 But the State also noted that Defendant was subsequently arrested and is facing charges in a new criminal case16: Possession with Intent to Deliver Methamphetamine, Tampering with Evidence, and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia.17 The State also explains that it attempted to reach the mother of the victim child but was unable to do so.18 Under these circumstances, the State opposes Defendant’s Motion.19 6. For the reasons outlined by the State, the Court declines to modify the no-contact provision of Defendant’s sentence. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Modification of No Contact Order is DENIED. 12 Id. Id. 14 D.I. 20. 15 Id. 16 ID No. 2007014228. 17 D.I. 20. 18 Id. 19 Id. 13 3 Jan R. Jurden Jan R. Jurden, President Judge Original to Prothonotary cc: James Gerleve Kelly Hicks Sheridan (DAG) 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
