IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
JESSE C. STANSEL, §
§
Defendant Below, § No. 17, 2016
Appellant, §
§ Court Below—Superior Court
v. § of the State of Delaware
§
STATE OF DELAWARE, § Cr. ID Nos. 1404021446 &
§ 1405005851
Plaintiff Below, §
Appellee. §
§
Submitted: March 31, 2016
Decided: May 3, 2016
Before HOLLAND, VALIHURA, and VAUGHN, Justices.
ORDER
This 3rd day of May 2016, upon consideration of the appellant’s opening
brief, the appellee’s motion to affirm, and the record below, it appears to the Court
that:
(1) The appellant, Jesse C. Stansel, filed this appeal from the Superior
Court’s December 11, 2015 order sentencing him for a violation of probation
(“VOP”). The State of Delaware has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s
judgment on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Stansel’s opening brief
that the appeal is without merit. We agree and affirm.
(2) The record reflects that, in September 2014, Stansel resolved two
cases by pleading guilty to two counts of Criminal Trespass in the First Degree and
one count each of Failure to Comply with Taking of Photographs or Fingerprints
and Criminal Mischief. Stansel was sentenced as follows: (i) for one count of
Criminal Trespass in the First Degree, one year of Level V incarceration,
suspended upon completion of a Level IV residential substance abuse treatment
program; (ii) for the other count of Criminal Trespass in the First Degree, one year
of Level V incarceration, suspended for one year of Level III Aftercare; (iii) for
Failure to Comply with Taking of Photographs or Fingerprints, one year of Level
V incarceration, suspended for one year of Level III Aftercare; (iv) for Criminal
Mischief, one year of Level V incarceration, suspended for one year of Level III
probation. Stansel did not appeal the Superior Court’s judgment.
(3) On November 5, 2015, an administrative warrant was filed for
Stansel’s VOP. The warrant alleged that Stansel had been discharged from the
Crest program for multiple violations of the program. On December 11, 2015, the
Superior Court found that Stansel had violated his probation. Stansel was
sentenced to one year of Level V incarceration for Failure to Comply with Taking
of Photographs or Fingerprints. Stansel was discharged as unimproved for his
other convictions. This appeal followed.
2
(4) In his opening brief, Stansel argues that the sentence for Failure to
Comply with Taking of Photographs or Fingerprints exceeds the Sentencing
Accountability Commission (“SENTAC”) sentencing guidelines. To the extent
Stansel is challenging the original sentence, that claim is outside the scope of this
appeal.1 To the extent Stansel is challenging the VOP sentence, that claim is
without merit.
(5) It is well-settled that the SENTAC guidelines are non-binding and do
not provide a basis for appeal of a sentence that is within the authorized statutory
limits.2 Once Stansel committed a VOP, the Superior Court could impose any
period of incarceration up to and including the balance of the Level V time
remaining on Stansel’s sentences.3 The Level V sentence imposed for Stansel’s
VOP in connection with his conviction for Failure to Comply with Taking of
Photographs or Fingerprints —one year of Level V incarceration—did not exceed
the one year of Level V time previously suspended for that conviction and was
within statutory limits.
1
See, e.g., Eley v. State, 2006 WL 435592, at *1 (Del. Feb. 21, 2006) (holding appellant could
not collaterally attack sentences on convictions underlying VOP in appeal from VOP).
2
Siple v. State, 701 A.2d 79, 83 (Del. 1997).
3
11 Del. C. § 4334(c); Pavulak v. State, 880 A.2d 1044, 1046 (Del. 2005).
3
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is
GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Karen L. Valihura
Justice
4