Full Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE STATE OF DELAWARE, ) ) v. ) ID No. 2203010974 ) BRANDON R. NORMAN, ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER On this 21st day of September, 2026, upon consideration of Brandon Norman’s (“Defendant”) pro se Motion to Modify Sentence (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 September 13, 2023, Defendant was found guilty of Assault Second Degree, Possession of a Deadly Weapon During the Commission of a Felony (PDWDCF), Terroristic Threatening, Endangering the Welfare of a Child, Criminal Mischief, and numerous motor vehicle violations.2 2. On December 15, 2023, the Court sentenced Defendant to an aggregate sentence of thirty-two years, suspended upon serving five years at Level V, followed by decreasing levels of probation supervision.3 Defendant appealed his conviction, 1 Docket Item (hereinafter “D.I.”) 61 (hereinafter “Mot.”). Defendant also invokes Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61 in the Motion. However, the only requested relief is a sentence reduction. Accordingly, Rule 35(b) governs the Motion. 2 D.I. 33. 3 D.I. 35. and, on September 12, 2024, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of this Court.4 3. On August 6, 2024, Defendant filed a pro se Motion for Sentence Modification.5 The Court denied this motion on November 1, 2024.6 4. On July 9, 2026, Defendant filed the instant Motion requesting that the Court reduce his sentence to three years at Level V followed by Level III probation or a suspension of his current Level IV time or any relief the Court deems applicable.7 The basis for this request was Defendant’s expression of accountability and completion of certain rehabilitation programs.8 5. 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.9 6. Rule 35(b) mandates that the Court will not consider repetitive requests for sentence reduction.10 A Rule 35(b) motion is considered repetitive even if the 4 Norman v. State, 326 A.3d 1202 (Del. 2024). 5 D.I. 48. 6 D.I. 50. 7 Mot. at 4. 8 Id. at 2–4. 9 State v. Redden, 111 A.3d 602, 606 (Del. Super. 2015). 10 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b). later motion raises new arguments.11 The bar to repetitive motions has no exception.12 7. Defendant previously requested reduction or modification of his sentence.13 As mandated by Rule 35(b), this Motion is repetitive, and it cannot be considered by the Court. Hence, Defendant’s Motion is DENIED IT IS SO ORDERED. Sheldon K. Rennie, Judge 11 State v. Culp, 152 A.3d 141, 144 (Del. 2016). 12 Id. 13 See D.I. 48.