Case Title: Rivera v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 221, 2016

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2016-08-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JOSE J. RIVERA, 
 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 221, 2016 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID Nos. 1501010204 and  
§  1501004702 
§ 
§ 
   
 
 
 
 
Submitted: June 23, 2016 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
August 29, 2016 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND and SEITZ, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 29th day of August 2016, upon consideration of the appellant’s opening 
brief, the State’s motion to affirm, and the record below, it appears to the Court 
that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Jose J. Rivera, filed this appeal from the Superior 
Court’s denial of his motion for correction of illegal sentence.  The State of 
Delaware has filed a motion to affirm the judgment below on the ground that it is 
manifest on the face of Rivera’s opening brief that his appeal is without merit.  We 
agree and affirm.   
(2) 
In November 2015, Rivera resolved two cases by pleading guilty to 
Strangulation, Noncompliance with Bond Conditions, and Assault in the Third 
 
2 
Degree.  The plea agreement reflected that the State would file a motion to declare 
Rivera a habitual offender under 11 Del. C. § 4214(a).  The Superior Court 
declared Rivera a habitual offender and sentenced him as follows: (i) for 
Strangulation, as a habitual offender under 11 Del. C. § 4214(a), twenty years of 
Level V incarceration; (ii) for Non-Compliance with Bond Conditions, five years 
of Level V incarceration, suspended after one year for decreasing levels of 
supervision; and (iii) Assault in the Third Degree, one year of Level V 
incarceration, suspended for one year of Level III probation.   
(3) 
On April 4, 2016, Rivera filed a motion for correction of illegal 
sentence.  Rivera argued that his twenty-year sentence for Strangulation constituted 
cruel and unusual punished under the Eighth Amendment of the United States 
Constitution.  The Superior Court denied the motion, finding that the sentence was 
appropriate for all the reasons stated at sentencing.  This appeal followed.   
(4) 
We review the Superior Court’s denial of a motion for correction of 
sentence for abuse of discretion, although questions of law are reviewed de novo.1  
In his opening brief, Rivera argues that his sentence violates the Eighth 
Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment because  the 
sentence exceeds the sentencing guidelines, the sentence for Strangulation is 
                                               
 
1 Fountain v. State, 2014 WL 4102069, at *1 (Del. Aug. 19, 2014). 
 
3 
greater than the statutory maximum for that crime, and the sentence is 
disproportionate to the crimes committed.  We find no merit to Rivera’s appeal.  
(5) 
As to Rivera’s claim that his sentence exceeds the guidelines in the 
Delaware Sentencing Accountability Commission Benchbook (“SENTAC 
Guidelines”), “a defendant has no legal or constitutional right to appeal a 
statutorily authorized sentence simply because it does not conform” to the 
SENTAC Guidelines.2  As to Rivera’s claim that his twenty year sentence for 
Strangulation exceeds the five year statutory maximum for that crime,3 Rivera 
ignores that he was sentenced for Strangulation under the habitual offender statute, 
11 Del. C. § 4214(a), which authorized a sentence of up to life imprisonment.  This 
Court has upheld the constitutionality of the habitual offender statute.4    
(6) 
Rivera argues that his predicate convictions were more than thirty 
years old,5 but does not dispute that he had the requisite number of qualifying 
convictions to support the State’s motion for habitual offender status under Section 
4214(a).  Finally, Rivera has not offered anything to suggest that his sentence was 
                                               
 
2 Mayes v. State, 604 A.2d 839, 845 (Del. 1992). 
3 Strangulation under 11 Del. C. 607(a)(1) is a Class E felony with a maximum sentence of five 
years of Level V incarceration.  11 Del. C.§ 607(a)(2); 11 Del. C.§ 4205(b)(5). 
4 See, e.g., Johnson v. State, 2008 WL 5191835, at *1 (Del. Dec. 11, 2008) (rejecting claim that 
habitual offender statute was unconstitutional because it did not require submission of predicate 
felony convictions to jury); Williams v. State, 539 A.2d 164, 180 (Del. 1988) (holding 
defendant's life sentence under Section 4214(b) for Burglary in the Second Degree was not 
unconstitutionally disproportionate in violation of Eighth Amendment). 
5 The convictions in the habitual offender motion range from the mid-1980s to the late 2000s. 
 
4 
grossly disproportionate to the crimes he committed.6  The sentencing order listed 
prior violent criminal activity, lack of amenability, need for correctional treatment, 
and undue depreciation of offense as aggravating factors.  We conclude that the 
Superior Court did not err in denying Rivera’s motion for correction of sentence.   
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/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice  
 
                                               
 
6 Crosby v. State, 824 A.2d 894, 908 (Del. 2003).