Title: Merillo v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
STEVEN MERILLO, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 38, 2005 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for Kent County 
§  Cr.A. Nos. IK03-08-0148; 0150;  
§                                    0153 
§                           
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: June 27, 2005 
 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: August 16, 2005 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 16th day of August 2005, 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) 
On November 12, 2003, the defendant-appellant, Steven 
Merillo, pleaded guilty to Robbery in the First Degree, Aggravated 
Menacing and Attempting to Wear a Disguise During the Commission of a 
Felony.  On the robbery charge, Merillo was sentenced to eight years 
incarceration at Level V, to be suspended after three years for one year at 
Level III probation.  On the aggravated menacing charge, he was sentenced 
to two years incarceration at Level V, to be suspended for the Level IV Crest 
 
2
program and, upon successful completion of the program, for six months 
Level III Aftercare.  Merillo was to be held at Level V pending space 
availability at Level IV.  Finally, on the charge of attempting to wear a 
disguise during the commission of a felony, Merillo was sentenced to two 
years incarceration at Level V, suspended for one year at Level III.   
 
(2) 
In May 2004, Merillo filed a motion for postconviction relief 
arguing that, because aggravated menacing is a lesser-included offense of 
first-degree robbery, his convictions on those charges violate double 
jeopardy and should be vacated.1  In its response to the motion, the State 
conceded the double jeopardy violation and agreed that Merillo’s conviction 
of aggravated menacing should be vacated.  However, the State also moved 
for a hearing in order to request that Merillo’s robbery sentence be increased 
to reflect the Superior Court’s original sentencing plan.  At a hearing on 
January 7, 2005, the Superior Court vacated Merillo’s aggravated menacing 
conviction.  Its sole modification to the sentencing order was to add the 
Level IV Crest program and 6 months of Level III Aftercare to Merillo’s 
robbery sentence, with Merillo to be held at Level V pending space 
availability at Level IV.   
                                          
 
1 Poteat v. State, 840 A.2d 599 (Del. 2003). 
 
3
 
(3) 
Merillo’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 could arguably 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 
 
(4) 
Merillo’s counsel asserts that, based upon a careful and 
complete examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable issues.  
By letter, Merillo’s counsel informed Merillo 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.  Merillo also was informed of his right 
to supplement his attorney’s presentation.  While Merillo did not respond 
with a brief, he previously had informed his counsel of three issues he 
wished to be considered by this Court on appeal.  The State has responded to 
the position taken by Merillo’s counsel as well as the issues raised by 
Merillo and has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment. 
                                          
 
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). 
 
4
 
(5) 
Merillo raises three issues for this Court’s consideration, which 
may fairly be summarized as follows.  He claims that his modified sentence 
on the robbery conviction is illegal because it violates the terms of his plea 
agreement and, therefore, he should be permitted to withdraw his guilty plea.   
 
(6) 
This Court has held that, after a related sentence has been 
vacated on appeal, a trial judge may sentence a defendant up to the 
combined duration of the original sentences in a manner consistent with the 
judge’s original sentencing plan without violating either double jeopardy or 
due process.3  For that reason, a defendant who challenges his sentence on 
double jeopardy grounds has no legitimate expectation of finality with 
respect to his original sentence.4   
 
(7) 
Because Merillo challenged his sentence on double jeopardy 
grounds, he had no legitimate expectation of finality with respect to his 
original sentence.  Moreover, there is no evidence that the Superior Court 
exceeded the combined duration of Merillo’s original sentences or re-
sentenced Merillo in a manner inconsistent with its original sentencing plan.  
Merillo’s assertion that the Crest and Aftercare programs were not part of 
the original plea agreement is incorrect.  In fact, he agreed to participate in 
                                          
 
3 White v. State, 576 A.2d 1322, 1328 (Del. 1990) (en banc). 
4 Id. 
 
5
those programs as part of his sentence for aggravated menacing.  We, 
therefore, find no merit to Merillo’s claims.  
 
(8) 
  This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has 
concluded that Merillo’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any 
arguably appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Merillo’s counsel has 
made a conscientious effort to examine the record and has properly 
determined that Merillo 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