Case Title: Dickerson v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 26, 2013

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2013-04-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DAVID H. DICKERSON,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
           Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 26, 2013 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0811010588 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
                                         Submitted: March 7, 2013 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: April 11, 2013 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 11th 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, David H. Dickerson, filed an appeal from 
the Superior Court’s January 10, 2013 order denying his second motion for 
correction of an illegal violation of probation (“VOP”) sentence pursuant to 
Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a).  The plaintiff-appellee, the State of Delaware, 
has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment on the ground that it is 
 
2
manifest on the face of the opening brief that the appeal is without merit.1  We 
agree and affirm. 
 
(2) 
The record before us reflects that, in June 2009, Dickerson was found 
guilty by a Superior Court jury of Burglary in the Third Degree, Attempted 
Burglary in the Third Degree, Possession of Burglary Tools, Conspiracy in the 
Second Degree and Criminal Mischief.  He was sentenced to a total of 11 years of 
Level V incarceration, with credit for 42 days served, to be suspended after 9 
months for 1 year of Level III probation.  Dickerson did not appeal his convictions. 
 
(3) 
In July 2010, Dickerson left the work release center on a pass and did 
not return.  He was arrested in New York on a traffic charge and was extradited 
back to Delaware in November 2010.  On December 2, 2010 Dickerson pleaded 
guilty in the Court of Common Pleas to Escape in the Third Degree and was 
sentenced to 60 days at Level V.  On December 10, 2010, Dickerson was found to 
have committed a VOP and was sentenced to a total of 10 years at Level V.  
Dickerson appealed, but later voluntarily withdrew his appeal. 
 
(4) 
In March of 2012, Dickerson filed a motion to correct his allegedly 
illegal VOP sentence, which the Superior Court denied.  In June of 2012, 
Dickerson filed a motion to modify his VOP sentence, which the Superior Court 
also denied.  He appealed the Superior Court’s denial of this latter motion, but later 
voluntarily withdrew his appeal.  In December 2012, Dickerson filed a second 
                                                 
1 Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
 
3
motion to correct his allegedly illegal VOP sentence.  The Superior Court denied 
the motion and this appeal ensued. 
 
(5) 
In his appeal, Dickerson claims that a) his sentence is illegal because 
it is excessive, violates his constitutional rights and violates the SENTAC 
guidelines; and b) the Superior Court judge sentenced him with a “closed mind.” 
 
(6) 
Dickerson’s first claim is that his sentence is illegal because it is 
excessive, violates his constitutional rights and violates the SENTAC guidelines.  
A sentence is “illegal” under Rule 35(a) if the sentence exceeds the statutorily-
authorized limits.2  Dickerson has not claimed, nor is there any evidence in the 
record before us, that his sentence exceeds the statutory limits.  Moreover, once a 
defendant violates the terms of his probation, the Superior Court has the authority 
to require the defendant to serve any portion of a previously-suspended Level V 
term.3  Again, Dickerson has not claimed, nor is there any record evidence, that the 
Superior Court’s sentence requires Dickerson to serve more Level V time than 
remains on his original Level V sentence.  While Dickerson claims that his 
sentence violates his constitutional rights, he offers no factual or legal support for 
that claim.  Finally, it is well-settled that there is no constitutional or statutory right 
in Delaware to appeal a criminal punishment on the sole ground that it deviates 
                                                 
2 Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d  577, 578 (Del. 1998).  A sentence also is illegal if it violates 
double jeopardy, is ambiguous with respect to the time and manner in which it is to be served, is 
internally contradictory, omits a term required to be imposed by statute, is uncertain as to the 
substance of the sentence or is a sentence that the judgment of conviction did not authorize.  Id. 
3 Mayes v. State, 604 A.2d 839, 845 (Del. 1992). 
 
4
from the SENTAC guidelines.4  For all of the above reasons, we conclude that 
Dickerson’s first claim is without merit.   
 
(7) 
Dickerson’s second claim is that the sentencing judge imposed 
sentence with a “closed mind.”  A judge imposes sentence with a closed mind 
when the sentence is based upon a preconceived bias without consideration of the 
nature of the offense or the character of the defendant.5  The transcript of the VOP 
sentencing hearing reflects that the judge explicitly considered Dickerson’s past 
history of absconding from custody in formulating Dickerson’s current sentence.  
There is no evidence that the judge sentenced Dickerson with a preconceived bias 
or without taking Dickerson’s past history into consideration.  As such, we 
conclude that Dickerson’s second claim is likewise 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 
 
 
                                                 
4 Siple v. State, 701 A.2d 79, 83 (Del. 1997). 
5 Cruz v. State, 990 A.2d 409, 416 (Del. 2010).