Pelletier v. State

• Court: Supreme Court of Delaware
• Decided: April 4, 2024
• Docket: 43, 2024
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

PETER J. PELLETIER, § § No. 43, 2024 Defendant Below, § Appellant, § Court Below—Superior Court § of the State of Delaware v. § § Cr. ID No. 2012007795(S) STATE OF DELAWARE, § § Appellee. §

Submitted: February 23, 2024 Decided: April 4, 2024

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice, VALIHURA and GRIFFITHS, Justices.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the opening brief, motion to affirm, and record on

appeal, it appears to the Court that:

(1) The appellant, Peter J. Pelletier, filed this appeal from a Superior

Court order sentencing him for a violation of probation (“VOP”). The State of

Delaware has filed a motion to affirm the judgment below on the ground that it is

manifest on the face of Pelletier’s opening brief that his appeal is without merit.

We agree and affirm.

(2) In March 2021, Pelletier was charged by information with driving

under the influence (“DUI”), driving with a suspended or revoked license, and

failing to have the required minimum insurance. On October 27, 2021, Pelletier pleaded guilty to seventh-offense DUI in exchange for the State entering a nolle

prosequi on the remaining charges. The Superior Court immediately sentenced

Pelletier to fifteen years of Level V incarceration, suspended after thirty months

and successful completion of a treatment program for eighteen months of Level III

probation. The sentencing order also required Pelletier maintain at least ninety

consecutive days of sobriety with an alcohol monitoring device determined by

Probation and Parole or through breath or urine analysis. Pelletier did not appeal.

(3) On September 18, 2023, Pelletier was released from Level V

incarceration. On October 27, 2023, the Department of Correction (“DOC”) filed

violation of conditional release and VOP reports for Pelletier. The reports alleged

that Pelletier had failed to report for weekly visits with his probation officer on

October 17, 2023 and October 24, 2023, failed to provide DOC with accurate

information concerning where he was staying, and made it impossible for DOC to

determine whether he was maintaining ninety consecutive days of sobriety.

(4) After a hearing on January 12, 2024, the Superior Court dismissed the

violation of conditional release and found that Pelletier had violated his probation.

For the VOP, the Superior Court sentenced Pelletier to twelve years of Level V

incarceration, suspended after one year for six months of Level IV DOC discretion,

three months of Level III probation with GPS monitoring, and nine months of

Level III probation. This appeal followed.

2 (5) In his opening brief, Pelletier admits that he violated his probation by

missing visits with his probation officer, but contends that the sentence imposed

was excessive for what he describes as a “technical” VOP. He requests a ninety-

day reduction in the unsuspended Level V time and removal of the Level IV time

from his sentence.

(6) This Court’s appellate review of a sentence is extremely limited and

generally ends upon a determination that the sentence is within statutory limits.1

When the sentence falls within the statutory limits, “we consider only whether it is

based on factual predicates which are false, impermissible, or lack minimal

reliability, judicial vindictiveness or bias, or a closed mind.”2

(7) Once Pelletier committed a VOP, the Superior Court could impose

any period of incarceration up to and including the balance of Level V time

remaining on his sentence.3 Pelletier’s VOP sentence—twelve years of Level V

incarceration suspended after one year for decreasing levels of supervision—does

not exceed the Level V time remaining on his sentence for seventh-offense DUI.

Pelletier has not identified anything to suggest that the VOP sentence was based on

factual predicates that are false, impermissible, or lack minimal reliability, judicial

1 Kurzmann v. State, 903 A.2d 702, 714 (Del. 2006). 2 Id. 3 11 Del. C. § 4334(c); Pavulak v. State, 880 A.2d 1044, 1046 (Del. 2005). 3 vindictiveness or bias, or a closed mind. It is manifest on the face of Pelletier’s

opening brief that his appeal is without merit.

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/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. Chief Justice