Title: Ramsey v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ANDRE L. RAMSEY, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff-Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§    No. 475, 2018 
§ 
§    Court Below—Superior Court 
§    of the State of Delaware 
§   
§    Cr. No. 1207013999 (N) 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted:  February 7, 2019 
  Decided:  March 22, 2019 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VAUGHN and SEITZ, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
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, Andre L. Ramsey, appeals a sentence the Superior Court 
imposed upon him for violating the terms of his probation and conditional release.  
The State has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment on the ground that it 
is manifest on the face of Ramsey’s opening brief that the appeal is without merit.  
We agree and affirm.  
(2) 
The record reflects that Ramsey pleaded guilty to three charges in order 
to resolve two pending cases on January 17, 2013.  Specifically, Ramsey pleaded 
guilty to identity theft, possession of a firearm by a person prohibited (“PFBPP”), 
 
2 
and drug dealing.  In exchange for his plea, the State dismissed eleven additional 
charges.  The Superior Court declared Ramsey to be a habitual offender under 11 
Del. C. § 4214(a) and sentenced him as follows: (i) for identity theft, two years of 
Level V incarceration, with credit for time served and no probation to follow; (ii) for 
PFBPP, five years of Level V incarceration with no probation to follow; and (iii) for 
drug dealing, eight years of Level V incarceration, suspended for probation with 
decreasing levels of supervision.  The Superior Court ordered the sentences be 
served consecutively. 
(3) 
Ramsey appealed his convictions and this Court affirmed on direct 
appeal.1  Thereafter, the record reflects that Ramsey petitioned the Superior Court to 
modify or correct his sentence on several occasions.  On December 12, 2017, the 
Superior Court modified Ramsey’s sentence to give the Department of Correction 
(“DOC”) discretion to determine the appropriate Level IV placement for Ramsey. 
(4) 
In April of 2018, DOC released Ramsey to Level IV home confinement.  
In June of 2018, Ramsey was arrested and charged with four counts of misdemeanor 
theft.  On August 10, 2018, Ramsey pleaded guilty to three counts of misdemeanor 
theft and the State entered a nolle prosequi on the fourth count.  The Superior Court 
held a violation of probation (“VOP”) hearing on August 15, 2018.  The Superior 
                                                 
1 Ramsey v. State, 2013 WL 5522598 (Del. Oct. 3, 2013). 
 
3 
Court found Ramsey in violation of probation for his drug dealing conviction and in 
violation of conditional release for his PFBPP conviction.  In connection with the 
revocation of Ramsey’s conditional release, the Superior Court ordered that he 
surrender all previously earned good time and serve the balance of the Level V 
sentence from which he was released.  On the VOP, the Superior Court sentenced 
Ramsey to eight years of Level V incarceration with credit for time served, 
suspended for probation at decreasing levels of supervision.  This appeal followed. 
(5) 
Ramsey raises two issues on appeal.  First, he contends he was not on 
conditional release when he picked up the new criminal charges.  Second, Ramsey 
argues the Superior Court abused its discretion by rescinding his “statutory good 
time” credit when it sentenced him for violating conditional release.  We find no 
merit to either claim. 
(6) 
Conditional release occurs when an inmate is released from 
incarceration into the community “by reason of diminution of the period of 
confinement through merit and good behavior credits.”2  According to DOC’s 
Offender Status Sheet, Ramsey’s Maximum Expiration Date (“MED”) for his Level 
V sentence for identity theft and PFBPP is July 13, 2019.  DOC released Ramsey 
early due to his accumulation of good time credits under 11 Del. C. § 4383.  Ramsey 
                                                 
2 11 Del. C. § 4302(4). 
 
4 
did not have probation associated with his Level V sentence for identity theft and 
PFBPP.  Accordingly, when DOC released Ramsey in April of 2018 to Level IV 
home confinement, he was on conditional release until his MED.  He was still on 
conditional release when he was arrested on new charges two months later.  
(7) 
Ramsey also contends that the Superior Court improperly ordered he 
forfeit his “statutory days” when it sentenced him for violating the terms of his 
conditional release.3  Ramsey correctly observes that 11 Del. C. § 4381 provides 
good time may be earned for an inmate’s good behavior (“statutory good time”) and 
for an inmate’s participation in certain programs (“meritorious good time”).  Ramsey 
argues only his meritorious good time was forfeited when he violated the terms of 
his conditional release.  The Court’s review of a sentence is extremely limited and 
its inquiry is generally limited to determining whether the sentence falls within the 
statutory limits prescribed by the legislature.4  The General Assembly has decreed 
that any person under DOC custody at Level IV or V who is convicted of a crime 
during the term of the sentence must forfeit “all good time accumulated to the date 
                                                 
3 After Ramsey filed a notice of appeal with the Court but before he filed his opening brief, Ramsey 
filed two motions in Superior Court seeking correction of his sentence and raising the same 
argument he raises here.  The Superior Court denied Ramsey’s motions on December 19, 2018, 
finding DOC had correctly calculated the balance of the sentence Ramsey has left to serve.  That 
decision is not on appeal in this case. 
4 Mayes v. State, 604 A.2d 839, 842-43 (Del. 1992). 
 
5 
of the criminal act.”5  Ramsey was in DOC custody at Level IV home confinement 
when he committed new crimes.  Accordingly, we do not find the sentence imposed 
by the Superior Court was an abuse of discretion. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED.  
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/  James T. Vaughn, Jr.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
                                                 
5 11 Del. C. § 4382(a) (emphasis added).