State of Delaware v. Felton.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAW ARE E. SCOTT BRADLEY SUSSEX CO UNT Y COU RTHO USE JUDGE 1 The Circle, Suite 2 GEORGETOWN, DE 19947 August 23, 2010 James A. Felton Sussex Correctional Institution P.O. Box 500 Georgetown, DE 19947 RE: State of Delaware v. James A. Felton Def. ID No. 0201017660 Letter Opinion Date Submitted: June 25, 2010 Dear Mr. Felton: This is my decision on your second Motion for Postconviction Relief. You were convicted of the charge of Unlawful Sexual Intercourse in the First Degree on November 22, 2002. I sentenced you to 20 years at Supervision Level V, suspended after 15 years at Supervision Level V for six months at Supervision Level IV Work Release, followed by four years and six months at Supervision Level III, on January 20, 2003. You were represented at trial by Carole J. Dunn, Esquire. The Supreme Court affirmed your conviction on July 3, 2003.1 You filed your first Motion for Postconviction Relief on August 9, 2006. I denied it on June 22, 2007. The Supreme Court affirmed my denial of your first Motion for Postconviction Relief on February 1, 2008.2 You filed your second Motion for Postconviction Relief on June 25, 2010. 1 827 A.2d 30 (Table), 2003 WL 21529302 (Del. July 3, 2003). 2 945 A.2d 594 (Table), 2008 WL 308231 (Del. Feb. 1, 2008). You allege that Dunn did not tell you that you had the right to seek a reduction of your sentence within 90 days after the imposition of it under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b). Your allegation is irrelevant because I have already considered and denied your request to modify your sentence for reasons unrelated to the fact that it was filed more than 90 days after I sentenced you. Your complaint about your sentence involves the Supervision Level IV Work Release portion of it.3 You wrote me a letter, dated May 22, 2010, stating that you could not participate in the work release program because it is not open to sex offenders (See Exhibit A ). I denied your request, reasoning that (1) it was premature to modify your sentence at this time because you still had a number of years left at Supervision Level V to serve, (2) work release would provide a good transition for you as you moved from incarceration to probation, and (3) the work release rules that will be in effect when you are supposed to go to work release may be less restrictive than they are now. I also told you that I would reconsider your request after you finish the Supervision Level V portion of your sentence (See Exhibit B ). Obviously, if you are not eligible for work release once you are supposed to go there, then your sentence will have to be modified. Thus, I have already considered your request and denied it for now. You may, as I told you before, renew your request to modify your sentence when you finish the Supervision Level V portion of your sentence and, if you do, I will consider your request even though it will be made more than 90 days after I sentenced you. CONCLUSION Your second Motion for Postconviction Relief is DENIED. 3 The Level V portion of your sentence is mandatory and cannot be suspended pursuant to the provisions of 11 Del.C. ยงยง 775 (a)(4) and 4205 that were in effect at the time. IT IS SO ORDERED. Very truly yours, /S/ E. Scott Bradley E. Scott Bradley oc: cc: Prothonotary s Office Melanie C. Withers, Esquire Carole J. Dunn, Esquire
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.
