Herbert v. State
This text of Herbert v. State (Herbert 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.
Opinion
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
JOHN HERBERT, § § No. 373, 2022 Defendant Below, § Appellant, § Court Below–Superior Court § of the State of Delaware v. § § Cr. ID No. 2005000034 (N) STATE OF DELAWARE, § § Appellee. §
Submitted: October 11, 2023 Decided: November 7, 2023
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; LEGROW and GRIFFITHS, Justices.
ORDER
After careful consideration of the parties’ briefs, the arguments of counsel,
and the record on appeal, we conclude that:
(1) Appellant’s conviction should be affirmed on the basis of and for the
reasons assigned by the Superior Court in its March 17, 2022 memorandum opinion
and August 8, 2022 memorandum opinion.
(2) Appellant also challenged the sentence imposed by the Superior Court
in its September 15, 2022 sentencing order. Appellant argues that the Superior Court
erred in concluding that 11 Del. C. § 4205A(d)(1) established a five-year minimum
mandatory sentence for appellant’s conviction for Unlawful Sexual Contact First
Degree. After filing this appeal, appellant filed a motion in the Superior Court raising the same argument. The trial court deferred ruling on appellant’s motion
because appellant intended to raise the issue on appeal.1
(3) We conclude that the Superior Court correctly imposed a minimum
mandatory sentence of five years of unsuspended Level 5 incarceration under 11
Del. C. § 4205A(d)(1). Section 4025A concerns additional penalties for serious sex
offenders or pedophile offenders. Subsection (d)(1) states that “[n]otwithstanding
any provision of this chapter or any other laws to the contrary, the Superior Court,
upon the State’s application, shall sentence a defendant convicted of any crime set
forth in § 769 or § 783(4) of this title to not less than 5 years to be served at Level V
if the victim of the crime is a child less than 7 years of age.” It is undisputed that
appellant was convicted under 11 Del. C. § 769 for unlawful sexual contact and that
the victim was less than seven years old at the time of the offense.
(4) Appellant, however, argues that because § 4205A(d)(1) does not
contain similar language to other statutory provisions that impose minimum
mandatory sentences, such as the habitual offender statute,2 the Superior Court had
discretion to suspend some or all of the five-year sentence required by Section
4205A(d)(1). Appellant points out that other provisions in Title 11 that impose a
1 See App. to Opening Br. at A404. 2 The habitual offender statute states, for example, that “[n]otwithstanding any provision of this title to the contrary, any minimum sentence required to be imposed . . . shall not be subject to suspension by the court, and shall be served in its entirety at full custodial Level V institutional setting without the benefit of probation or parole[.]” 11 Del. C. § 4214(e) (emphasis added). 2 minimum mandatory sentence specifically state that the minimum sentence “shall
not be subject to suspension.”3 The absence of that language in Section 4205A(d)(1)
does not, as appellant argues, allow the Superior Court to suspend any portion of the
five-year minimum sentence. Here, 11 Del. C. § 4204(d) controls. It states that
“[n]otwithstanding anything in this Criminal Code to the contrary, probation or a
suspended sentence shall not be substituted for imprisonment where the statute
specifically indicates that a prison sentence is a mandatory sentence, a minimum
sentence, a minimum mandatory sentence or a mandatory minimum sentence, or
may not otherwise be suspended.”4 Section 4205A(d)(1) creates a minimum
sentence for convictions under Section 769, and the trial court therefore did not have
discretion to sentence appellant to anything less than five years of unsuspended
Level 5 incarceration.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior
Court is AFFIRMED and appellant’s motion to correct an illegal sentence is
DENIED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ N. Christopher Griffiths Justice
3 See 11 Del. C. §§ 1448(e)(4), 4214(e). 4 11 Del. C. § 4204(d). 3
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Herbert v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herbert-v-state-del-2023.