Case Title: Massas v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 552, 2011

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2011-12-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
LAMAR MASSAS,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
Plaintiff Below-
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 552, 2011 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, in and 
§  for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0706005722 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
                                    
Submitted: November 7, 2011 
 
Decided:    December 6, 2011 
 
Before HOLLAND, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 6th day of December 2011, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief and the appellee’s motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 25(a), it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) The defendant-appellant, Lamar Massas, filed an appeal from the 
Superior Court’s May 12, 2011 order denying his motion for sentence 
modification pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 35.  The plaintiff-
appellee, the State of Delaware, has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s 
 
2
judgment on the ground that it is manifest on the face of the opening brief 
that the appeal is without merit.*  We agree and affirm. 
 
(2) The record before us reflects that, in September 2007, Massas 
pleaded guilty to a single count of Burglary in the Second Degree.  As part 
of the plea agreement, the State dismissed additional theft and conspiracy 
charges.  Massas was sentenced to 3 years of Level V incarceration, to be 
suspended for 6 months at Level IV, followed by 18 months of probation.  
Following a hearing in November 2009, Massas was found to have 
committed a violation of probation (“VOP”) by incurring a new criminal 
charge—Possession of a Deadly Weapon By a Person Prohibited.  Massas, 
who was represented by counsel, pleaded guilty to the new charge on 
November 5, 2009.  As part of the plea agreement, the State agreed not to 
oppose Massas’ VOPs being discharged as unimproved.      
 
(3) Because Massas also had been charged with violating other 
probationary sentences, a second VOP hearing was scheduled for April 
2011.  At that hearing, Massas was found to have violated three additional 
probationary sentences.  The Superior Court sentenced Massas on his four 
VOPs to a total of 6 years at Level V, to be suspended after 2 years for 1 
                                                 
* Supr. Ct. R. 25(a).   
 
3
year of Level III probation.  Massas did not file a direct appeal from his 
VOP sentences.   
 
(4) On May 2, 2011, Massas moved for modification of his 
sentences.  He sought to have his VOPs discharged as unimproved based 
upon the State’s agreement not to oppose a discharge.  On May 12, 2011, the 
Superior Court denied Massas’ motion on the ground that it was not bound 
by the State’s sentencing recommendation.  Massas then filed a second 
motion for sentence modification, which the Superior Court denied as time-
barred and repetitive.      
 
(5) In his appeal from the Superior Court’s denial of his second 
motion for sentence modification, Massas claims that, because he wrongly 
believed that his VOPs would be discharged when he signed the November 
5, 2009 plea agreement, his plea was involuntary.   
 
(6) The record belies Massas’ claim.  The November 5, 2009 plea 
agreement provides only that the State will not oppose Massas’ VOPs being 
discharged as unimproved; not that the VOPs would, in fact, be discharged.  
Along with his plea agreement, Massas, who was represented by counsel, 
signed a Truth-in-Sentencing Guilty Plea Form, in which he acknowledged 
that his guilty plea was voluntary and that he had not been promised 
 
4
anything not reflected in the written plea agreement.  In the absence of any 
factual basis for Massas’ claim, we conclude that it is without merit. 
 
(7) It is manifest on the face of the opening brief that this appeal is 
without merit because the issues presented on appeal are controlled by 
settled Delaware law and, to the extent that judicial discretion is implicated, 
there was no abuse of discretion. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to 
affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
  
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
  
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
       Justice