Case Title: Sulecki v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 496, 2012

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2013-04-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
STANLEY B. SULECKI,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
           Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 496, 2012 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr. ID No. 1012013250 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
                                         Submitted: March 7, 2013 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: April 3, 2013 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 3rd day of April 2013, 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, Stanley B. Sulecki, filed an appeal from the 
Superior Court’s August 7, 2012 violation of probation (“VOP”) sentencing order.  
The plaintiff-appellee, the State of Delaware, has moved to affirm the Superior 
Court’s judgment on the ground that it is manifest on the face of the opening brief 
that the appeal is without merit.1  We agree and affirm. 
                                                 
1 Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
 
2
 
(2) 
The record before us reflects that, in February 2011, Sulecki pleaded 
guilty to his seventh offense of Driving Under the Influence (“DUI”).  He was 
sentenced to 5 years of Level V incarceration, with credit for 65 days previously 
served, to be suspended after 1 year and successful completion of the Tempo 
program for 6 months Level IV Home Confinement, to be followed by 18 months 
of Level III probation.   
 
(3) 
Following a hearing on August 7, 2012, Sulecki was found to have 
violated his probation by testing positive for alcohol and marijuana.  The Superior 
Court sentenced Sulecki on the VOP to 4 years at Level V, with credit for 52 days 
served, to be suspended upon successful completion of the Key program for Level 
IV Crest, to be followed by 18 months of Level III Crest Aftercare, with a TAD 
(transdermal continuous alcohol monitoring device) bracelet. 
 
(4) 
In his appeal from the Superior Court’s VOP sentence, Sulecki claims 
that a) the sentencing judge impermissibly relied on his past behavior to determine 
his current treatment needs; b) the sentencing judge was biased against him and 
sentenced him with a closed mind; and c) his Level V sentence exceeded the 
SENTAC recommendation that an offender move up only one sentencing level 
upon a finding of a VOP. 
 
(5) 
  Sulecki’s first claim is that the sentencing judge impermissibly relied 
on his past behavior to determine his current treatment needs.  We disagree.  To the 
 
3
contrary, it was reasonable for the sentencing judge to rely on Sulecki’s past 
history to determine an appropriate sentence.  Sulecki’s continuing pattern of 
alcohol and drug use provided more than an adequate basis for the imposition of 
Level V time as well as the Key/Crest programs.  In the absence of any abuse of 
discretion on the part of the Superior Court in sentencing Sulecki, we conclude that 
his first claim is without merit.   
 
(6) 
Sulecki’s second claim is that the sentencing judge was biased against 
him and sentenced him with a closed mind.  A judge imposes sentence with a 
closed mind when the sentence is based upon a pre-conceived bias without 
consideration of the nature of the offense or the character of the defendant.2  The 
transcript of the VOP hearing in this case reflects that the judge permitted both 
Sulecki’s mother and employer to speak on his behalf.  The judge also recited in 
detail Sulecki’s repeated screenings showing alcohol and drugs in his system as 
well as his seven citations for DUI.  There was more than a sufficient basis for the 
judge to impose a Level V sentence, with the requirement of completion of the 
Key/Crest programs.  We, therefore, conclude that Sulecki’s second claim also is 
without merit. 
 
(7) 
Sulecki’s third claim is that his Level V sentence exceeds the 
SENTAC recommendation that an offender move up only one sentencing level 
                                                 
2 Cruz v. State, 990 A.2d 409, 416 (Del. 2010). 
 
4
upon a finding of a VOP.  It is well-settled that the SENTAC guidelines are 
voluntary and non-binding.3  A defendant has no legal or constitutional right to 
appeal a statutorily-authorized sentence simply because it does not conform to the 
sentencing guidelines established by the Sentencing Accountability Commission.4  
We, therefore, conclude that Sulecki’s third claim, too, is without merit. 
 
(8) 
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/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
                                                 
3 Mayes v. State, 604 A.2d 839, 845 (Del. 1992). 
4 Id.