Case Title: Goodlett v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 121, 2006

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2006-07-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
GEORGE R. GOODLETT, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 121, 2006 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for Kent County 
§  Cr. ID Nos. 0408002660  
§                      0408009977 
§                      0409003817 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: May 10, 2006 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: July 6, 2006 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This sixth day of July 2006, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
brief filed pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 26(c), his attorney’s motion to 
withdraw, and the State’s response thereto, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, George R. Goodlett, pleaded guilty to 
Burglary in the Third Degree, Assault in the Third Degree, Misdemeanor 
Criminal Mischief, and Misdemeanor Non-Compliance with Conditions of 
Bond.  He was sentenced to three years of Level V imprisonment on the 
burglary conviction and was sentenced on the remaining convictions to a 
total of one year and thirty days at Level V, to be suspended for six months 
of probation and a $100 fine.  This is Goodlett’s direct appeal. 
 
2
 
(2) 
The record reflects that, while the State initially had petitioned 
the Superior Court to sentence Goodlett as a habitual offender on the 
burglary conviction, it withdrew the petition prior to sentencing.  After the 
Superior Court mistakenly sentenced Goodlett as a habitual offender to four 
years at Level V on the burglary conviction, Goodlett’s counsel filed a 
motion to amend the sentence.  The Superior Court granted the motion and, 
on October 20, 2005, issued a modified sentencing order that imposed three 
years of Level V incarceration, the statutory maximum sentence for 
conviction of the Class F felony of Burglary in the Third Degree.1  
 
(3) 
Goodlett’s counsel has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw 
pursuant to Rule 26(c).  The standard and scope of review applicable to the 
consideration of a motion to withdraw and an accompanying brief under 
Rule 26(c) is twofold: (a) the Court must be satisfied that defense counsel 
has made a conscientious examination of the record and the law for claims 
that arguably could support the appeal; and (b) the Court must conduct its 
own review of the record and determine whether the appeal is so totally 
devoid of at least arguably appealable issues that it can be decided without 
an adversary presentation.2 
                                          
 
1 Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, §§ 824 and 4205(b) (6).  
2 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 
U.S. 429, 442 (1988); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). 
 
3
 
(4) 
Goodlett’s counsel asserts that, based upon a careful and 
complete examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable issues.  
By letter, Goodlett’s counsel informed Goodlett of the provisions of Rule 
26(c) and provided him with a copy of the motion to withdraw, the 
accompanying brief and the complete trial transcript.  Goodlett also was 
informed of his right to supplement his attorney’s presentation.  Goodlett 
responded with a brief that raises two issues for this Court’s consideration.  
The State has responded to the position taken by Goodlett as well as the 
issues raised by Goodlett and has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s 
judgment. 
 
(5) 
Goodlett raises two issues for this Court’s consideration.  He 
claims that: a) he should not have been sentenced as a habitual offender; and 
b) his sentence does not include a 6-month transition period, as required by 
Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 4204(l). 
 
(6) 
Relief is available under Rule 35(a) only when the sentence 
imposed exceeds the statutorily authorized limits, 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 its substance, or is a sentence that the judgment of conviction 
 
4
did not authorize.3  As a general rule, appellate review of criminal sentences 
in Delaware is limited to a determination of whether the sentence exceeds 
the statutory limits.4     
 
(7) 
Goodlett’s claim that he should not have been sentenced as a 
habitual offender is moot since the Superior Court issued a modified 
sentencing order vacating his habitual offender sentence.  Moreover, because 
Goodlett’s burglary sentence is within the statutory limits, there is no basis 
for relief pursuant to Rule 35(a). 
 
(8) 
Goodlett’s second claim is that his sentence does not contain 
the 6-month transition period mandated by Delaware law.  While Goodlett is 
correct that his burglary sentence contains no post-imprisonment 
supervision, his assault sentence has a three-month probationary period and 
his criminal mischief sentence has an additional three-month probationary 
period, albeit at supervision Level I.  We conclude that Goodlett’s sentence 
fulfills the intent of the six-month transition period mandated by Delaware 
law and, therefore, find that this claim, too, is without merit. 
 
(9) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Goodlett’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Goodlett’s counsel has made a 
                                          
 
3 Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998). 
4 Mayes v. State, 604 A.2d 839, 842 (Del. 1992). 
 
5
conscientious effort to examine the record and has properly determined that 
Goodlett could not raise a meritorious claim in this appeal. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to 
affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.  
The motion to withdraw is moot. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice