Title: Garrett v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
KENWAUNA GARRETT,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
           Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 689, 2011 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 1002004921 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted:  June 22, 2012 
Decided:  August 9, 2012 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 9th day of August 2012, upon consideration of the briefs of the 
parties and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Kenwauna Garrett, filed an appeal 
from the Superior Court’s November 18, 2011 violation of probation 
(“VOP”) sentencing order.  We find no merit to the appeal.  Accordingly, we 
affirm. 
 
(2) 
The record before us reflects that, in June 2011, Garrett pleaded 
guilty to 2 counts of Forgery in the Second Degree and 1 count of Theft.  
She was sentenced on the first forgery conviction to 2 years of Level V 
incarceration, to be suspended after 6 months for decreasing levels of 
 
2
supervision.  On the second forgery conviction, she was sentenced to 2 years 
at Level V, to be suspended for 1 year of Level III probation.  On the theft 
conviction, she was sentenced to 1 year at Level V, to be suspended for 1 
year at Level I.   
 
(3) 
On November 18, 2011, the Superior Court found that Garrett 
had committed a VOP with respect to her forgery and theft sentences by 
incurring new criminal charges.  She was re-sentenced to a total of 5 years at 
Level V, to be suspended upon successful completion of the Level V Key 
Program and the Level IV Crest Program for decreasing levels of 
supervision.  The Superior Court also disposed of other Court of Common 
Pleas VOP sentences in the same sentencing order by discharging them as 
unimproved and entered a civil judgment against Garrett in the amount of 
$19,261.91. 
 
(4) 
In this appeal, Garrett asserts several claims that may fairly be 
summarized as follows: the VOP sentences are invalid because a) she was 
discharged from those sentences as unimproved by another Superior Court 
judge; and b) they are excessive in violation of the TIS guidelines.   
 
(5) 
The record reflects that, during an exchange with another 
Superior Court judge at the conclusion of her October 11, 2011 sentencing 
hearing on additional convictions of forgery, theft and unlawful use of a 
 
3
credit card,1 the judge made a comment regarding discharging certain of 
Garrett’s VOPs as unimproved.  The record further reflects that there were 
no VOPs before the Superior Court for disposition and that the October 11, 
2011 sentencing order did not dispose of any VOPs.  Finally, the transcript 
of the November 18, 2011 VOP hearing reflects that, when asked by 
Garrett’s counsel if any of Garrett’s VOPs had been discharged as 
unimproved at the sentencing hearing on October 11, 2011, the Superior 
Court judge ruled that, to the extent any such order had been entered, it was 
vacated.   
 
(6) 
Garrett’s first claim is that her VOP sentences are invalid 
because she was previously discharged as unimproved on those sentences by 
another Superior Court judge.  We have reviewed the record on that point 
carefully and conclude that the Superior Court acted appropriately when it 
ignored the statement of the previous Superior Court judge.  The statement 
was without any legal or factual foundation and was not reflected in the final 
sentencing order.  We, thus, conclude that there was no error or abuse of 
discretion on the part of the Superior Court. 
 
(7) 
Garrett’s second claim is that her sentences are excessive in 
violation of the TIS guidelines.  There is no evidence reflecting that the 
                                                 
1 It was those charges that provided the basis for the VOP at issue here. 
 
4
sentences imposed by the Superior Court exceeded the amount of Level V 
time remaining on Garrett’s original sentences.  Any claim of illegality is, 
therefore, without merit.2  Moreover, it is well-settled that a defendant has 
no legal or constitutional right to appeal a sentence solely on the ground that 
it does not conform to the TIS sentencing guidelines.3  We, therefore, 
conclude that Garrett’s second claim also is unavailing. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
    
 
                                                 
2 Moody v. State, 988 A.2d 451, 454 (Del. 2010) (citing State v. Sloman, 886 A.2d 1257, 
1260 (Del. 2005) and Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, §4334(c)). 
3 Gaines v. State, 571 A.2d 765, 766-67 (Del. 1990).