Full Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE STATE OF DELAWARE, ) ) v. ) ID No. 2504006468 ) KAYLA VICKERY, ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER On this 4th day of August, 2026, upon consideration of Kayla Vickery’s (“Defendant”) pro se Motion for Sentence Modification (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 December 9, 2025, Defendant was found in violation of her parole.2 2. On that same date, the Court sentenced Defendant to one year of Level V time, suspended for one year at Level IV DOC discretion, suspended after completion of DOC discretion for one year at Level III. 3. On May 18, 2026, Defendant filed the instant Motion requesting that the Court reduce her sentence to six months at Level IV suspended upon completion of the Road to Recovery Program for a year of Level III without sober living. 3 The basis for this request is Defendants’ grandparents’ need for care, Defendant’s 1 Docket Item (hereinafter “D.I.”) 13 (hereinafter “Mot.”). 2 Sentence Order (D.I. 11.). 3 Mot. p. 2. acceptance of her substance use problem, and her compliance with the Road to Recovery program and other classes. 4 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.5 5. Rule 35(b) mandates that the Court will not consider repetitive requests for sentence reduction. 6 A Rule 35(b) motion is considered repetitive even if the later motion raises new arguments. 7 The bar to repetitive motions has no exception.8 6. Defendant has previously requested reduction or modification of his sentence.9 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 4 Id. 5 State v. Redden, 111 A.3d 602, 606 (Del. Super. 2015). 6 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b). 7 State v. Culp, 152 A.3d 141, 144 (Del. 2016). 8 Id. 9 See D.I. 14 (Order dated May 27, 2026 denying motion for modification on the merits). 2