Title: Sands v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
CHRISTOPHER SANDS, 
 
 
Defendant Below– 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below– 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 106, 2018 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below–Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID No. 1303017721 (N) 
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: March 29, 2019 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
April 12, 2019 
 
Before VAUGHN, SEITZ, and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
Upon careful consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record below, it 
appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Christopher Sands, filed this appeal from a February 15, 
2018 Superior Court violation of probation (VOP) sentence.  Sands, who identifies 
as a transgendered woman, contends the Superior Court’s sentence did not take into 
consideration her mental health issues.  Sands also argues the Superior Court 
sentenced her with a closed mind.  We find no merit to Sands’ appeal.  Accordingly, 
we affirm the Superior Court’s judgment.   
(2) 
The record reflects that Sands was serving the probation portion of a 
sentence for felony unlawful sexual contact (USC) when she absconded from the 
 
2 
Plummer Community Corrections Center in 2013.  The Superior Court found Sands 
in violation of her probation on the USC charge and sentenced her to five years at 
Level V incarceration (“Level V”) with credit for time previously served, suspended 
after six months for eighteen months of Level III probation.  Sands subsequently 
pleaded guilty to an escape charge and received a sentence of five years at Level V, 
suspended after six months for eighteen months of Level II probation.   
(3) 
On April 24, 2014, the Superior Court found Sands in violation of the 
terms of her probation on both the USC charge and the escape charge and re-
sentenced her as follows:  for the USC VOP, three years at Level V, suspended after 
the successful completion of the Transitions sex offender program, followed by 
Level IV supervision at the discretion of the Department of Corrections (DOC); and, 
for the escape VOP, four years and six months at Level V, suspended after the 
successful completion of the Key program, followed by decreasing levels of 
supervision.  Between 2014 and 2017, Sands filed numerous motions for review or 
modification of her sentence.  Although all of the motions were denied, the record 
reflects the Superior Court was in communication with the behavioral health team at 
the prison and kept tabs on Sands’ treatment progress.  On November 28, 2017, the 
Superior Court discharged Sands as unimproved on the USC VOP and modified 
Sands’ sentence on the escape VOP to four years and six months at Level V, 
 
3 
suspended upon Sands’ acceptance to and completion of an appropriate Level III 
residential program, with twelve months of aftercare to follow. 
(4) 
Sands was then released to a Level III residential program for women 
in Dover, Delaware.  She reviewed and acknowledged her probation conditions, 
including the restriction that, as a registered sex offender, she was not permitted to 
have access to, or possession of, sexually explicit or obscene material.  On December 
30, 2017, Sands was observed openly watching pornography in a common area of 
the residential facility.  Sands was immediately terminated from the program.  At 
her January 25, 2018 VOP hearing, Sands admitted to violating the terms of her 
probation.  The Superior Court deferred sentencing for three weeks in order to 
investigate placement options that might be available and appropriate for Sands.  On 
February 15, 2018, the Superior Court sentenced Sands to three years and six months 
at Level V, suspended upon the successful completion of the Transitions sex 
offender program, followed by decreasing levels of supervision.  
(5) 
On appeal, Sands asks this Court to overturn her VOP sentence so she 
can receive the “right” treatment.  Sands also alleges the Superior Court sentenced 
her with a closed mind because she identifies as a transgendered woman. 
(6) 
We find no merit to Sands’ contentions. Sands does not dispute that she 
violated the terms of her probation.  Her sole issue on appeal is the appropriateness 
of her sentence.  But, this Court’s review of a sentence is generally limited to 
 
4 
determining whether the sentence falls within statutory limits.1  Once the State has 
proven by a preponderance of the evidence that a VOP has occurred, the Superior 
Court is authorized to impose any period of incarceration up to and including the 
balance of the Level V time remaining to be served on the original sentence.2  In this 
case, the Superior Court’s VOP sentence did not exceed the balance of Level V time 
remaining on Sands’ sentence. 
(7) 
Moreover, the record is completely devoid of evidence to support  
Sands’ contention that the trial court sentenced her with a closed mind.  We have 
reviewed the hearing transcripts in this case.  In each court appearance, the Superior 
Court made special note of Sands’ mental health issues and unique status as a 
transitioning woman.  The Superior Court proactively worked with the DOC to seek 
out appropriate treatment and placement for Sands.  The record reflects the Superior 
Court took several weeks after accepting Sands’ admission that she had violated the 
terms of her probation and prior to sentencing Sands in order to review a risk and 
needs assessment, a TASC recommendation, and a mental health professional’s 
opinion.  At the sentencing hearing, the Superior Court heard substantial testimony 
from Sands’ probation officer regarding Sands’ mental health diagnoses before 
sentencing her to the Transitions program.  The VOP sentencing judge—who has 
                                                 
1  Mayes v. State, 604 A.2d 839, 842-43 (Del. 1992). 
2  11 Del. C. § 4334(c). 
 
5 
presided over Sands’ escape case since 2014—repeatedly articulated, in open court 
and via written communication with Sands, a desire to address Sands’ mental health 
issues first and foremost.  Under the circumstances, the sentence was authorized by 
law, was neither arbitrary nor excessive, and does not reflect any evidence of a 
closed mind by the Superior Court. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
Justice