Case Title: Samuels v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 612, 2009

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2010-06-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JOHNATHAN SAMUELS, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 612, 2009 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 0706037589 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: April 12, 2010 
Decided: 
June 16, 2010 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 16th day of June 2010, upon consideration of the appellant's 
Supreme Court Rule 26(c) brief, his attorney's motion to withdraw, and the 
State's response thereto, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On October 6, 2009, the defendant-appellant, Johnathan 
Samuels (Samuels), was found to have violated the terms of his probation.  
The Superior Court sentenced Samuels on the VOP, and this appeal 
followed. 
 (2) 
Samuels' counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Samuels' counsel asserts that, based upon 
a complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably 
 
2 
appealable issues.  By letter, Samuels' attorney informed him of the 
provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Samuels with a copy of the motion to 
withdraw and the accompanying brief.  Samuels also was informed of his 
right to supplement his attorney's presentation.  Samuels raises two issues 
for this Court's consideration.  The State has responded to Samuels’ points, 
as well as to the position taken by Samuels' counsel, and has moved to 
affirm the Superior Court's judgment. 
(3) 
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) this Court must be satisfied that defense counsel 
has made a conscientious examination of the record and the law for arguable 
claims; and (b) this 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.1 
(4) 
The record reflects that Samuels pled guilty on November 8, 
2007 to one count of second degree robbery.  He was sentenced to five years 
at Level V incarceration to be suspended after serving one year for four 
years at decreasing levels of supervision.  In June 2008, he was arrested on 
                                                 
1 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 
new criminal charges and pled guilty on October 1, 2008 to possession of a 
schedule II controlled substance.  The same day, he was found in violation 
of the probation associated with his second degree robbery conviction.  The 
Superior Court sentenced Samuels on the drug charge to one year at Level V 
incarceration to be suspended immediately for one year at Level III 
probation.  On the VOP, the Superior Court sentenced Samuels to five years 
at Level V incarceration, to be suspended after serving six months for 
eighteen months at Level III probation. 
(5) 
In August 2009, another VOP report was filed.  Following a 
hearing on October 6, 2009, the Superior Court again found Samuels in 
violation of the terms of his probation and resentenced him on the second 
degree robbery charge to four years at Level V incarceration, to be 
suspended after serving two years with no probation to follow.  The Superior 
Court discharged Samuels as unimproved from the probation association 
with his drug possession conviction. 
(6) 
In his opening brief on appeal, Samuels argues that the Superior 
Court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence upon him.  
Samuels also argues that the trial judge sentenced him with a closed mind 
because the court departed from the sentencing guidelines without stating in 
 
4 
particular the reason for the upward departure.  We find no merit to either 
claim. 
(7) 
With respect to Samuels’ claim that his sentence was excessive, 
the Superior Court, in fact, could have imposed a penalty of three and a half 
years at Level V incarceration2 but instead sentenced him to two years at 
Level V incarceration with no probation to follow.  To disturb a sentence on 
appeal, there must be a showing either of the imposition of an illegal 
sentence or an abuse of the sentencing judge’s discretion.3  In this case, we 
find neither.  Nonetheless, we do find that the Superior Court judge 
misspoke when stating that four years remained to be served on Samuels’ 
original sentence for second degree robbery.  In fact, Samuels had served 
one year in prison following his initial sentencing year and had served an 
additional six months following his first VOP.  Consequently, the balance of 
Samuels’ original sentence was only three and a half years.  Accordingly, 
the Superior Court’s sentencing order needs to be corrected to reflect that 
                                                 
2 The Superior Court originally sentenced Samuels to five years in prison, but suspended 
the period of incarceration after one year.  Samuels also served an additional six months 
at Level V following his first VOP.  Accordingly, having served eighteen months in 
prison on his original sentence, the Superior Court could have imposed up to, without 
exceeding, the three and a half years remaining on his original sentence. See Pavulak v. 
State, 880 A.2d 1044, 1045-46 (Del. 2005). 
3 Weber v. State, 655 A.2d 1219, 1221 (Del. 1995). 
 
5 
Samuels’ has been credited with all of the time previously served on his 
original sentence. 
(8) 
Samuels’ second claim is that the judge sentenced him with a 
closed mind because she failed to state the particular reasons she was 
departing from the sentencing guidelines.  We find no support for this 
argument.  After Samuels admitted to the VOP charge, the judge listened to 
Samuels’ arguments in mitigation.  Prior to sentencing Samuels, the judge 
noted his lengthy criminal history, the seriousness of the charged offense 
and his history of probation violations.  Under the circumstances, we find no 
support for Samuels’ contention that the judge exhibited a closed mind in 
sentencing him. 
(9) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Samuels’ appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Samuels' counsel has made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly 
determined that Samuels could not raise a meritorious claim in this appeal. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State's motion to 
affirm is GRANTED.  The matter is REMANDED to the Superior Court for 
correction of the sentencing order to reflect credit to Samuels for all time 
 
6 
previously served on his original sentence.  The judgment of the Superior 
Court is otherwise AFFIRMED. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice