State v. Clements

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE STATE OF DELAWARE, v. MAURICE CLEMENTS, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ID No. 1406009553 Date Submitted: March 31, 2021 Date Decided: June 14, 2021 ORDER Upon consideration of the Department of Correction’s (the “DOC”) Application for Good Cause Shown pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 4217,1 the Board of Parole’s (the “Board”) recommendation,2 the State’s response,3 statutory and decisional law, and the record in this case, IT APPEARS THAT: 1. On January 12, 2015, Defendant pled guilty to Possession of a Firearm by a Person Prohibited (“PFBPP”), Drug Dealing (Tier 2), and Second-Degree Conspiracy.4 By order dated April 17, 2015, effective June 12, 2015, the Court sentenced Defendant as follows: for PFBPP, 5 years at Level V;5 for Drug Dealing (Tier 2), 8 years at Level V, suspended after 4 years at Level V, for 4 years at Level 1 D.I. 26. Id. 3 Id.; D.I. 27. 4 D.I. 7. 5 Defendant was declared a Habitual Offender as to this offense. D.I. 13. 2 IV (DOC Discretion), suspended after 6 months at Level IV (DOC Discretion), for 18 months at Level III, hold at Level III until space is available at Level IV (DOC Discretion); and for Second-Degree Conspiracy, 2 years at Level V, suspended for 1 year at Level III.6 Defendant has filed two motions for reduction of sentence and one motion for postconviction relief;7 the Court has denied all three motions.8 2. On October 21, 2019, pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 4217, the DOC filed an application with the Board recommending that the Level V portion of Defendant’s sentence be modified as follows: As to . . . IN14-07-0018 [PFBPP] 5 years Level 5; criminal action number IN14-07-2159 [Drug Dealing (Tier 2)] 8 years level 5 suspended after 2 years at level 5 and successful completion of Alternatives to Violence Program for 6 years Level 4 DOC Discretion suspended after 6 months for 18 months Level 3. Hold at Level 3 until space is available at Level 4 DOC Discretion. As to criminal action number IN14-07-0020 [Second-Degree Conspiracy] the sentence shall remain unchanged.9 The DOC cited “Rehabilitative Efforts” as the good-cause factor supporting its recommendation.10 In addition, DOC risk assessment noted that Defendant is able to manage his finances; has access to food, healthcare, family support, and stable housing; has a lifestyle conducive to pro-social behavior; and has no major 6 Id. D.I. 16, 18, 24. 8 D.I. 17, 23, 25. 9 D.I. 26. 10 Id. 7 2 substance-abuse concerns or mental-health issues.11 At the time that the DOC produced its application, Defendant had served 5 years and 5 months of his sentence.12 3. On March 23, 2021, the State submitted its response in opposition to sentence modification.13 The State explained the factual background preceding Defendant’s PFBPP, Drug Dealing (Tier 2), and Second-Degree Conspiracy convictions.14 As outlined by the State, Defendant was observed conducting a handto-hand sale of heroin to a confidential informant.15 When officers from the New Castle County Police Department executed a search warrant for Defendant’s residence, they found a loaded handgun stashed in the water tank of a toilet, 275 bags of heroin, $347 in cash, and drug paraphernalia.16 The State also noted that before these events occurred, Defendant had already been convicted of a number of felonies17 and charged with several others.18 The State concludes that Defendant is 11 Id. Id. 13 Id. 14 Id. 15 Id. 16 Id. 17 Id. Namely, the State notes, Defendant was convicted of Possession of Ammunition by a Person Prohibited and Possession of a Deadly Weapon by a Person Prohibited in 2009, and he was convicted of Tampering with Physical Evidence in 2012—a conviction that qualified Defendant as a habitual offender. Id. 18 Id. Namely, the State charged Defendant “was charged with a Burglary Second Degree and related offenses in 2013 that the State dismissed for insufficient evidence. Moreover, he was charged with a Robbery First Degree and Assault Second Degree in 2012 that the State dismissed for lack of victim cooperation.” Id. 3 12 a career criminal with a history of weapons and drug convictions; a number of additional charges (that the State ultimately did not pursue); six violations of probation; and a lack of amenability to lesser sanctions, which the Court noted in its most recent sentencing order.19 4. On March 30, 2021, the Board held a hearing with Defendant to determine whether to recommend a sentence modification.20 Upon consideration of Defendant’s testimony, the DOC’s report, the State’s response, and relevant documentation, the Board found as follows: The Department of Correction has shown “good cause” for sentence modification in this case. The Department of Correction has met the intention of 11 [Del. C. § ]4217(b) by stating that the release of the offender into the community would not constitute a substantial risk to the community or himself. The offender has demonstrated rehabilitation through appropriate program participation (GED, Head Start Home[,] and Inside/Out[).]21 The Board then voted unanimously to recommend the following sentence modification: “Balance of sentence suspended for six (6) months Level IV Work Release followed by Level III community supervision in accordance with SB 50. All other aspect[s] of sentence to remain the same.”22 19 Id. Id. 21 Id. 22 Id. The Board would also have the Court require Defendant to “provide a DNA sample prior to release from Level V.” Id. 4 20 5. Pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 4217(b), the Court “may” modify a defendant’s sentence “solely on the basis of an application filed by the Department of Correction for good cause shown which certifies that the release of the defendant shall not constitute a substantial risk to the community or the defendant’s own self.”23 Good cause includes, among other things, “rehabilitation of the offender, serious medical illness or infirmity of the offender[,] and prison overcrowding.”24 The Court may exercise its discretion to deny “a recommendation of sentence modification by the Board of Parole unless such denial [is] based upon unreasonable or capricious grounds.”25 6. After careful review of the materials submitted, the Court denies the Board’s recommendation. The Court acknowledges the praiseworthiness of Defendant’s program participation and favorable risk-assessment report. But the Court is not convinced that “release of the defendant shall not constitute a substantial risk to the community.” Defendant’s criminal history is replete with drug- and weapons-related convictions spanning several years.26 23 Especially troubling is 11 Del. C. § 4217(b). 11 Del. C. § 4217(c). 25 Hubble v. State, 2013 WL 2966832, at *1 (Del. June 12, 2013) (citing Zimmerman v. State, 628 A.2d 62, 65 (Del. 1993)). 26 ID No. 0901005715 (Possession of a Deadly Weapon by a Person Prohibited); ID No. 0908023312 (Possession of Ammunition by a Person Prohibited and Possession of Marijuana); ID Nos. 1203012750, 1208003943 (Violation of Probation with an underlying charge of Tampering with Physical Evidence and Violation of Probation with an underlying charge of Resisting Arrest); ID No. 1406009553 (PFBPP, Drug Dealing (Tier 2), and Second-Degree Conspiracy). 5 24 Defendant’s conviction for dealing heroin, one of Defendant’s most recent convictions. Indeed, in a past case, this Court denied the Board’s recommendation for sentence modification after determining that the defendant’s drug-dealing history rendered him a substantial risk to the community; the Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed.27 Also notable is that Defendant showed a lack of remorse and acceptance of responsibility as to his most recent convictions—despite having committed several offenses in the past.28 Accordingly, the Court concludes that Defendant continues to pose a “substantial risk to the community” and, therefore, does not qualify for sentence modification pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 4217. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Department of Correction's Application for Good Cause Shown pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 4217 is DENIED. Jan R. Jurden Jan R. Jurden, President Judge Original to Prothonotary cc: 27 28 Maurice Clements (SBI# 00506007) James K. McCloskey (DAG) Norwood v. State, 2005 WL 1653714, at *2 (Del. June 27, 2005). D.I. 13. 6

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.