SS 1 for SB 10 w/ HA 3 — Richard ‘Mouse’ Smith Compassionate Release Act
Last action — Signed
-
✓Introduced
-
✓In Committee
-
✓Passed Senate
-
✓Passed House
-
✓To Executive
-
6Enacted
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced July 15, 2025. Enacted.
Signed by Governor Matt Meyer (Democratic) on July 15, 2025.
Odds of enactment
High chanceBased on the sponsor, cosponsors, and committee posture, this bill has a high chance of becoming law.
Upgrade to see the exact probability and what's driving it.
A statistical estimate from our own model of past outcomes — an insight, not a guarantee. Policymaking is volatile.
Prognosis
-
Enacted
Current position in the legislative process.
-
1 sponsor
1 primary, 0 co-sponsors signed on.
-
Single-party support
Sponsorship is currently within one party (1 D).
-
Cleared a recorded vote
Passed 3 recorded votes so far.
Based on stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes, and cross-state momentum — a description of the observable signals, not a prediction.
Summary
Currently, the Department of Correction (“Department”) biennially reviews individuals sentenced to more than 1 year of incarceration to determine if there is good cause to recommend a sentence modification to the Board of Parole for an individual who is not a substantial risk to the community or the individual’s self. Good cause includes the individual’s rehabilitation, serious medical illness or infirmity, and prison overcrowding. While any individual is eligible for consideration due to a serious medical illness or infirmity, only those who have served at least ½ of their sentence for a violent felony or all of the statutorily mandated term of incarceration are eligible for consideration for rehabilitation, prison overcrowding, or another reason. If the Department recommends an individual for sentence modification, the Board of Parole considers the application and, if the Board approves, the sentencing court then makes a final determination on the sentence modification. This Act, which is named in honor of Richard “Mouse” Smith, a Delaware civil rights leader, who spent decades advocating on issues addressed by this Act, is a substitute for Senate Bill No. 10. Like Senate Bill No. 10, this Act revises the process for sentence modification in 3 ways. First, this Act removes the Board of Parole from the sentence modification process and provides that applications for sentence modification are made directly to the sentencing court. Second, this Act provides that an individual who is sentenced to incarceration for more than 1 year may seek a sentence modification in 3 circumstances: (1) The application for a sentence modification is based solely on the person’s serious medical illness or infirmity. (2) The person is 60 years of age or older, has served at least 15 years of the originally imposed Level V sentence, and the application for sentence modification is based solely on the person’s rehabilitation. (3) The person has served at least 25 years of the originally imposed Level V sentence and the application for sentence modification is based solely on the person’s rehabilitation. Third, this Act provides that an individual who is sentenced to incarceration for more than 1 year and whose sentence is reviewed by the Department, but who the Department does not recommend for sentence modification, may directly apply to the court for a sentence modification. Like Senate Bill No. 10, this Act also makes clear that the Department and sentencing court must consider if a sentence modification resulting in the release of an individual who is incarcerated would constitute a substantial risk to a victim of, or witness to, an offense that is the subject of the sentence modification and that the sentencing court must provide an opportunity for the victim and the Department of Justice to be heard. This Act differs from Senate Bill No. 10 as follows: (1) Providing that a person is not eligible for a sentence modification under this Act if the person is serving a statutorily mandated term of incarceration at Level V for a conviction of any offense under this title and has not yet served all of the statutorily mandated portion of the Level V sentence. Senate Bill No. 10 provided the person was not eligible until the person had served ½ of the statutorily mandated portion of the Level V sentence. (2) Making clear that the person’s attorney may file the sentence modification for the person. (3) Making clear that an application for a sentence modification may be filed by those who have served the period of incarceration provided under paragraph (a)(5) and have good cause. (4) Requiring the Department, on completion of the Department’s eligibility review under paragraph (d)(1), to provide the person with information regarding the person’s right to counsel. (5) Providing that the person may retain a private attorney at the person's own expense or request the court refer the person to the Office of Defense Services, and that the person may proceed without an attorney only as provided under court rules. (6) Requiring the Department to biennially conduct the eligibility review required under paragraph (d)(1). Senate Bill No. 10 would have required the Department to make these determinations annually. (7) Requiring the Department to provide to the court, with an application for sentence modification the Department files, a written statement of the satisfied requirements under this Act that form the Department’s basis for recommending the sentence modification. (8) Requiring the Department to provide to the person, the person’s attorney of record, or the Office of Defense Services a written statement of the Department’s reasons for not recommending a sentence modification, including the unsatisfied requirements of this Act that form the Department’s basis for not recommending the sentence modification. (9) Authorizing the court to summarily dismiss an application that does not include the statements from the Department required by this Act, except for an application based solely on the person’s serious medical illness or infirmity. (10) Authorizing the court to summarily dismiss an application if the court determines summary dismissal is warranted. (11) Giving the court discretion to determine how long a person whose application for sentence modification is denied because the court determines the person constitutes a substantial risk to the community or the person’s application lacks good cause. This Act provides the period set by the court may not exceed 3 years. (12) Making clear that if the court denies an application for sentence modification based on a person’s serious medical illness or infirmity, the person may submit a subsequent application if at least 60 days have passed since the date of the court’s denial and if the application demonstrates a material change in the person’s circumstances.
Bill Text
We don't have the full text on file for this bill yet.
Read SS 1 for SB 10 w/ HA 3 on the official Delaware source →Action History
-
Signed
Sponsors
- Bryan Townsend · Primary
Sponsorship breakdown
Export CSV (upgrade) →1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 61 not signed on · 17 voted No
Sponsors (1)
- Bryan Townsend Democratic
Co-sponsors (0)
None.
Not signed on (61)
61 members have not signed on to this bill.
Show all 61 →"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.
Votes
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic | 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Republican | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 19 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 90% | 10% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (21)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Bryan Townsend | Democratic | Yea |
| Daniel Cruce | Democratic | Yea |
| Darius J. Brown | Democratic | Yea |
| David P. Sokola | Democratic | Yea |
| John "Jack" Walsh | Democratic | Yea |
| Kyra L. Hoffner | Democratic | Yea |
| Laura V. Sturgeon | Democratic | Yea |
| Marie Pinkney | Democratic | Yea |
| Nicole Poore | Democratic | Yea |
| Ray Seigfried | Democratic | Yea |
| Russell Huxtable | Democratic | Yea |
| S. Elizabeth Lockman | Democratic | Yea |
| Spiros Mantzavinos | Democratic | Yea |
| Stephanie L. Hansen | Democratic | Yea |
| Trey Paradee | Democratic | Yea |
| Brian Pettyjohn | Republican | Yea |
| Bryant L. Richardson | Republican | Yea |
| Dave G. Lawson | Republican | Yea |
| David L. Wilson | Republican | Nay |
| Eric Buckson | Republican | Yea |
| Gerald W. Hocker | Republican | Nay |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic | 26 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Republican | 2 | 12 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 28 | 12 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 70% | 30% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (40)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Claire Snyder-Hall | Democratic | Yea |
| Cyndie Romer | Democratic | Yea |
| DeShanna U Neal | Democratic | Yea |
| Debra Heffernan | Democratic | Yea |
| Edward S. Osienski | Democratic | Yea |
| Eric Morrison | Democratic | Yea |
| Frank Burns | Democratic | Yea |
| Franklin D. Cooke | Democratic | Yea |
| Josue O Ortega | Democratic | Yea |
| Kamela T Smith | Democratic | Yea |
| Kendra Johnson | Democratic | Yea |
| Kerri Evelyn Harris | Democratic | Yea |
| Kimberly Williams | Democratic | Yea |
| Krista Griffith | Democratic | Yea |
| Larry Lambert | Democratic | Yea |
| Madinah Wilson-Anton | Democratic | Yea |
| Mara Gorman | Democratic | Yea |
| Melanie Ross Levin | Democratic | Yea |
| Melissa Minor-Brown | Democratic | Yea |
| Nnamdi O. Chukwuocha | Democratic | Yea |
| Sean M. Lynn | Democratic | Yea |
| Sherae'a Moore | Democratic | Yea |
| Sophie Phillips | Democratic | Yea |
| Stephanie T. Bolden | Democratic | Yea |
| William Bush | Democratic | Yea |
| William J. Carson | Democratic | Yea |
| Bryan W. Shupe | Republican | Nay |
| Charles S Postles Jr. | Republican | Nay |
| Daniel B. Short | Republican | Nay |
| Jeff Hilovsky | Republican | Nay |
| Jeffrey N. Spiegelman | Republican | Nay |
| Jesse R. Vanderwende | Republican | Nay |
| Kevin S Hensley | Republican | Nay |
| Lyndon D. Yearick | Republican | Nay |
| Michael F. Smith | Republican | Nay |
| Richard G. Collins | Republican | Nay |
| Ronald E. Gray | Republican | Nay |
| Shannon Morris | Republican | Nay |
| Timothy D. Dukes | Republican | Yea |
| Valerie Jones Giltner | Republican | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic | 14 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Republican | 1 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 15 | 5 | 0 | 1 |
| % of votes cast | 71% | 24% | 0% | 5% |
How each member voted (21)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Bryan Townsend | Democratic | Yea |
| Daniel Cruce | Democratic | Yea |
| Darius J. Brown | Democratic | Not Voting |
| David P. Sokola | Democratic | Yea |
| John "Jack" Walsh | Democratic | Yea |
| Kyra L. Hoffner | Democratic | Yea |
| Laura V. Sturgeon | Democratic | Yea |
| Marie Pinkney | Democratic | Yea |
| Nicole Poore | Democratic | Yea |
| Ray Seigfried | Democratic | Yea |
| Russell Huxtable | Democratic | Yea |
| S. Elizabeth Lockman | Democratic | Yea |
| Spiros Mantzavinos | Democratic | Yea |
| Stephanie L. Hansen | Democratic | Yea |
| Trey Paradee | Democratic | Yea |
| Brian Pettyjohn | Republican | Nay |
| Bryant L. Richardson | Republican | Yea |
| Dave G. Lawson | Republican | Nay |
| David L. Wilson | Republican | Nay |
| Eric Buckson | Republican | Nay |
| Gerald W. Hocker | Republican | Nay |
Subjects
Frequently asked questions
- What does SS 1 for SB 10 w/ HA 3 do?
- Currently, the Department of Correction (“Department”) biennially reviews individuals sentenced to more than 1 year of incarceration to determine if there is good cause to recommend a sentence modification to the Board of Parole for an individual who is not a substantial risk to the community or the individual’s self. Good cause includes the individual’s rehabilitation, serious medical illness or infirmity, and prison overcrowding. While any individual is eligible for consideration due to a serious medical illness or infirmity, only those who have served at least ½ of their sentence for a violent felony or all of the statutorily mandated term of incarceration are eligible for consideration for rehabilitation, prison overcrowding, or another reason. If the Department recommends an individual for sentence modification, the Board of Parole considers the application and, if the Board approves, the sentencing court then makes a final determination on the sentence modification. This Act, which is named in honor of Richard “Mouse” Smith, a Delaware civil rights leader, who spent decades advocating on issues addressed by this Act, is a substitute for Senate Bill No. 10. Like Senate Bill No. 10, this Act revises the process for sentence modification in 3 ways. First, this Act removes the Board of Parole from the sentence modification process and provides that applications for sentence modification are made directly to the sentencing court. Second, this Act provides that an individual who is sentenced to incarceration for more than 1 year may seek a sentence modification in 3 circumstances: (1) The application for a sentence modification is based solely on the person’s serious medical illness or infirmity. (2) The person is 60 years of age or older, has served at least 15 years of the originally imposed Level V sentence, and the application for sentence modification is based solely on the person’s rehabilitation. (3) The person has served at least 25 years of the originally imposed Level V sentence and the application for sentence modification is based solely on the person’s rehabilitation. Third, this Act provides that an individual who is sentenced to incarceration for more than 1 year and whose sentence is reviewed by the Department, but who the Department does not recommend for sentence modification, may directly apply to the court for a sentence modification. Like Senate Bill No. 10, this Act also makes clear that the Department and sentencing court must consider if a sentence modification resulting in the release of an individual who is incarcerated would constitute a substantial risk to a victim of, or witness to, an offense that is the subject of the sentence modification and that the sentencing court must provide an opportunity for the victim and the Department of Justice to be heard. This Act differs from Senate Bill No. 10 as follows: (1) Providing that a person is not eligible for a sentence modification under this Act if the person is serving a statutorily mandated term of incarceration at Level V for a conviction of any offense under this title and has not yet served all of the statutorily mandated portion of the Level V sentence. Senate Bill No. 10 provided the person was not eligible until the person had served ½ of the statutorily mandated portion of the Level V sentence. (2) Making clear that the person’s attorney may file the sentence modification for the person. (3) Making clear that an application for a sentence modification may be filed by those who have served the period of incarceration provided under paragraph (a)(5) and have good cause. (4) Requiring the Department, on completion of the Department’s eligibility review under paragraph (d)(1), to provide the person with information regarding the person’s right to counsel. (5) Providing that the person may retain a private attorney at the person's own expense or request the court refer the person to the Office of Defense Services, and that the person may proceed without an attorney only as provided under court rules. (6) Requiring the Department to biennially conduct the eligibility review required under paragraph (d)(1). Senate Bill No. 10 would have required the Department to make these determinations annually. (7) Requiring the Department to provide to the court, with an application for sentence modification the Department files, a written statement of the satisfied requirements under this Act that form the Department’s basis for recommending the sentence modification. (8) Requiring the Department to provide to the person, the person’s attorney of record, or the Office of Defense Services a written statement of the Department’s reasons for not recommending a sentence modification, including the unsatisfied requirements of this Act that form the Department’s basis for not recommending the sentence modification. (9) Authorizing the court to summarily dismiss an application that does not include the statements from the Department required by this Act, except for an application based solely on the person’s serious medical illness or infirmity. (10) Authorizing the court to summarily dismiss an application if the court determines summary dismissal is warranted. (11) Giving the court discretion to determine how long a person whose application for sentence modification is denied because the court determines the person constitutes a substantial risk to the community or the person’s application lacks good cause. This Act provides the period set by the court may not exceed 3 years. (12) Making clear that if the court denies an application for sentence modification based on a person’s serious medical illness or infirmity, the person may submit a subsequent application if at least 60 days have passed since the date of the court’s denial and if the application demonstrates a material change in the person’s circumstances.
- Who sponsors SS 1 for SB 10 w/ HA 3?
- SS 1 for SB 10 w/ HA 3 is sponsored by Bryan Townsend (Democratic).
- What is the current status of SS 1 for SB 10 w/ HA 3?
- This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced July 15, 2025. Enacted.
- Where can I track SS 1 for SB 10 w/ HA 3?
- Track SS 1 for SB 10 w/ HA 3 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.
Make your voice heard on SS 1 for SB 10 w/ HA 3
Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.
Stay ahead of SS 1 for SB 10 w/ HA 3
Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously
One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.
Track this bill →