Case Title: Kurzmann v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 216, 2010

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2010-06-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
MICHAEL H. KURZMANN,   
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 216, 2010 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0312007348 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted:  May 13, 2010 
Decided:  June 29, 2010 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 29th day of June 2010, 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, Michael H. Kurzmann, filed an appeal 
from the Superior Court’s April 5, 2010 order denying his motion for 
correction of sentence pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a).  The 
plaintiff-appellee, the State of Delaware, has moved to affirm the Superior 
 
2 
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. 
 
(2) 
The record reflects that, in April 2004, Kurzmann pleaded 
guilty to one count of Assault in the Second Degree and three counts of 
Endangering the Welfare of a Child in connection with his assault on his 
wife in the presence of his three children.  On the assault conviction, he was 
sentenced to 4 years of Level V incarceration, to be suspended for 6 months 
at Level IV Home Confinement and 1 year at Level III probation.  On each 
of the three child endangerment convictions, he was sentenced to 1 year at 
Level IV, to be suspended for 1 year at Level III probation.   
 
(3) 
While on probation, Kurzmann again assaulted his wife.  He 
subsequently was found to have committed a violation of probation (“VOP”) 
and was sentenced to 7 years at Level V, the full suspended Level V term 
contained in his original sentence.  The Superior Court also added a 6-month 
probationary period to the Level V sentence.  Kurzmann’s VOP sentence 
was affirmed by this Court on appeal.2  Prior to his motion for correction of 
sentence, Kurzmann filed a Rule 61 postconviction motion and two motions 
for sentence modification, all of which were unsuccessful. 
                                                 
1 Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
2 Kurzmann v. State, 903 A.2d 702 (Del. 2006). 
 
3 
 
(4) 
In this appeal, Kurzmann claims that his VOP sentence is 
illegal because the 6-month probationary period added by the Superior Court 
causes it to exceed the maximum allowable sentence.   
 
(5) 
Under Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, §4334(c), the Superior Court 
may, upon revocation of probation, require the violator to serve the entire 
remaining suspended Level V sentence.  Under Section 4204(1), the 
Superior Court must, when imposing a Level V sentence that totals 1 year or 
more, include as part of that sentence a 6-month period of custodial 
supervision of not less than 6 months.  Moreover, that 6-month period “may, 
at the discretion of the court, be in addition to the maximum sentence of 
imprisonment established by the statute.”   
 
(6) 
Because the VOP sentence imposed by the Superior Court was 
in conformity with the above statutes and, therefore, entirely legal, 
Kurzmann’s claim 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. 
 
4 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State of Delaware’s 
motion to affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is 
AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice