Case Title: Perez-Lopez v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 346, 2023

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2024-01-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ESAU O. PEREZ-LOPEZ, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 346, 2023 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID No. 1510005323 (K) 
§                     
§                     
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:   November 14, 2023 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
January 3, 2024 
 
Before VALIHURA, TRAYNOR, and LEGROW, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 
Upon consideration of the opening brief, motion to affirm, and record on 
appeal, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Esau O. Perez-Lopez, filed this appeal from a Superior 
Court order sentencing him for his fifth 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 Perez-Lopez’s opening brief that his appeal is without 
merit.  We agree and affirm. 
(2) 
In January 2016, a grand jury charged Perez-Lopez with multiple 
crimes arising from an armed robbery.  On May 18, 2016, Perez-Lopez pleaded 
guilty to two counts of second-degree robbery, wearing a disguise during the 
2 
 
commission of a felony, and endangering the welfare of a child, in exchange for 
dismissal of the remaining charges.  The Superior Court immediately sentenced 
Perez-Lopez as follows: (i) for the first count of second-degree robbery, five years 
of Level V incarceration, suspended after two years and completion of the Key 
program, for decreasing levels of supervision; (ii) for the second count of second-
degree robbery, five years of Level V incarceration, suspended for two years of 
Level III Aftercare; (iii) for wearing a disguise during the commission of a felony, 
five years of Level V incarceration, suspended for one year of Level III Aftercare; 
and (iv) for endangering the welfare of a child, one year of Level V incarceration, 
suspended for one year of Level III Aftercare.  Perez-Lopez did not appeal. 
(3) 
In 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022, the Superior Court found that Perez-
Lopez had violated his probation and imposed VOP sentences for the robbery and 
disguise convictions.  The Superior Court discharged Perez-Lopez as unimproved 
for the endangering conviction in 2019.   
(4) 
On June 21, 2023, the Department of Correction (“DOC”) filed a 
VOP report for Perez-Lopez.  The report alleged that Perez-Lopez had violated his 
probation by testing positive for cocaine three times and cutting off his GPS anklet.   
(5) 
After a hearing on August 28, 2023, the Superior Court found that 
Perez-Lopez had violated his probation.  The Superior Court sentenced Perez-
Lopez as follows: (i) for wearing a disguise during the commission of a felony, one 
3 
 
year of Level V incarceration, suspended after ten months for Level I probation; 
(ii) for the first second-degree robbery conviction, seven months of Level V 
incarceration, suspended for Level I probation; and (iii) for the second-degree 
robbery conviction, seven months of Level V probation, suspended for Level I 
probation.  This appeal followed.   
(6) 
In his opening brief, Perez-Lopez does not dispute that he violated his 
probation but contends that the VOP sentence for the disguise conviction is illegal, 
in violation of Truth-in-Sentencing Act (“SENTAC”) guidelines, and excessive.   
He claims to have been offered a VOP sentence of ten months Level IV work 
release, but he instead requested a Level V sentence with the expectation that the 
Superior Court would sentence him to less than ten months of Level V time.   
(7) 
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   
(8) 
Once Perez-Lopez committed a VOP, the Superior Court could 
impose any period of incarceration up to and including the balance of the Level V 
 
1 Kurzmann v. State, 903 A.2d 702, 714 (Del. 2006). 
2 Id.  
4 
 
time remaining on his sentence.3  Perez-Lopez’sVOP sentence for wearing a 
disguise during the commission of a felony—one year of Level V incarceration 
suspended after ten months—does not exceed the Level V time remaining on his 
sentence for this conviction.  The SENTAC guidelines are non-binding and do not 
provide a basis for appeal where, as here, the sentence falls within prescribed 
statutory limits.4  Perez-Lopez conclusorily claims that the Superior Court judge 
sentenced him with a closed mind, but the Superior Court judge could reasonably 
conclude that Perez-Lopez’s fifth VOP merited the Level V sentence imposed.          
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/ Gary F. Traynor 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
3 11 Del. C. § 4334(c); Pavulak v. State, 880 A.2d 1044, 1046 (Del. 2005). 
4 Mayes v. State, 604 A.2d 839, 845 (Del. 1992).