Fullman v. State

298 A.2d 314, 1972 Del. LEXIS 316
CourtSupreme Court of Delaware
DecidedNovember 21, 1972
StatusPublished

This text of 298 A.2d 314 (Fullman v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Fullman v. State, 298 A.2d 314, 1972 Del. LEXIS 316 (Del. 1972).

Opinions

HERRMANN, Justice

(for the Majority of the Court):

This appeal questions the propriety of a sentence of imprisonment for 5 years upon a plea of guilty to assault and battery under 11 Del.C. § 105.1 The original charge was assault with intent to commit murder under 11 Del.C. § 577.2

The defendant invokes the rule of Hamilton v. State, Del.Supr., 285 A.2d 807 (1971), which held that the unlimited judicial discretion in sentencing under § 105 may be circumscribed by a statute specifying a maximum penalty for an analagous offense. See also Sheldon v. State, Del. Supr., 291 A.2d 273 (1972). The defendant argues that 11 Del.C. § 3707,3 and the 3 year maximum prison sentence therein specified for an assault, should be deemed a limitation upon § 105 in an assault and battery case. We agree that Hamilton and Sheldon apply, but we disagree as to the applicability of § 3707.

Assault is the only offense covered by § 3707; there is no reference therein to battery. More relevant as a guideline and limitation upon § 105, under the Hamilton [315]*315rule, is 11 Del.C. § 813(b) 4 which provides a maximum prison sentence of 5 years for assault and battery upon a law enforcement officer. We know of no other Delaware statutory guideline for an assault and battery sentence; but § 813(b) provides one of the highest order, furnishing a suitable standard for all others.

Following Hamilton and Sheldon, it is held that by § 813(b) the General Assembly manifested a public policy establishing a maximum incarceration period of 5 years for the crime of assault and battery. The sentence here imposed under § 105 does not exceed that maximum. Therefore, it will not be disturbed.

This kind of analysis and analogy seems necessary in the pursuit of the degree of uniformity in the sentencing process so essential to fairness and justice. As we stated in Sheldon: (291 A.2d at 275)

“ * * * [W]e see no other way of furnishing satisfactory guidelines to the trial Judges in cases where determination of sentence is left completely to the discretion of the Court; nor do we see any other way, in the absence of legislative help, to insure a reasonable degree of uniformity in the sentencing process.
“We take this opportunity to point out that there are numerous other criminal statutes which contain no maximum limit of sentences; it would be a great help to the administration of justice if the Legislature would provide specific maximum sentences in such statutes. The question which invariably confronts the Court is what is the legislative will; when that will has been expressed, there is usually no problem of interpretation. We strongly recommend that this be done for all ‘open-end sentence’ statutes like § 205 * *

The judgment below is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Sheldon v. State
291 A.2d 273 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 1972)
Hamilton v. State
285 A.2d 807 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 1971)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
298 A.2d 314, 1972 Del. LEXIS 316, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fullman-v-state-del-1972.