Jones v. State
This text of Jones v. State (Jones 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
KEVIN W. JONES, § § No. 598, 2015 Defendant Below- § Appellant, § § v. § Court Below—Superior Court § of the State of Delaware STATE OF DELAWARE, § Cr. ID Nos. 0608001068, § 0208000381, and 0006013606 Plaintiff Below- § Appellee. §
Submitted: November 20, 2015 Decided: January 12, 2016
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA, and SEITZ, Justices.
ORDER
This 12th day of January 2016, upon consideration of the appellant’s opening
brief, the State’s motion to affirm, and the record below, it appears to the Court
that:
(1) The defendant-appellant, Kevin Jones, filed this appeal from the
Superior Court’s order sentencing him for violating three different probationary
sentences. Jones concedes that he violated probation. His only argument on
appeal is that the Superior Court had a closed mind when it sentenced him to three
consecutive one-year terms of imprisonment. Jones requests that his VOP sentences be modified to run concurrently. We find no merit to Jones’s appeal.
Accordingly, we affirm the Superior Court’s judgment.
(2) A judge sentences a defendant with a closed mind when the sentence
is based upon a preconceived bias rather than consideration of the nature of the
offense and the character of the defendant. 1 In this case, Jones’s allegation of a
closed mind is purely conclusory. His opening brief identifies no specific
comments made by the judge indicative of a closed mind. Moreover, the transcript
of the sentencing hearing reflects that the judge considered Jones’s criminal history
and the serious nature of his most recent VOP (which led to Jones pleading guilty
to new criminal charges) before sentencing him. The judge actually sentenced
Jones to less prison time than requested by the State. Under the circumstances, we
find no support for Jones’s allegation that the Superior Court sentenced him with a
closed mind.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior
Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. Justice
1 Weston v. State, 832 A.2d 742, 746 (Del. 2003).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Jones v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-state-del-2016.