Title: Hassett v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
GEORGE HASSETT, 
 
 
§  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§  
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§  
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§   No. 289, 2004 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§  
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§   Court Below – Superior Court 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§   of the State of Delaware, 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§   in and for Sussex County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§   Cr.A. Nos. 03-11-0385 through 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§        0390 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§  
 
 
 
 
 
  Submitted:  August 26, 2004 
 
 
 
 
     Decided:  November 12, 2004 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 12th day of November 2004, upon consideration of the 
appellant’s Opening Brief and the appellee’s motion to affirm pursuant to 
Supreme Court Rule 25(a), it appears to the Court that: 
 
1) 
The appellant, George Hassett, filed an appeal from the 
Superior Court’s order dated March 19, 2004, that denied his motion for a 
reduction of his sentence. The appellee, State of Delaware, has moved to 
affirm the judgment of the Superior Court on the ground that it is manifest 
on the face of Hassett’s Opening Brief that the appeal is without merit.  We 
agree and affirm the judgment of the Superior Court. 
 
2
 
2) 
On January 12, 2004, George Hassett was charged by 
indictment with one count of Rape in the First Degree, five counts of Rape 
in the Second Degree, and one count each of Intimidation of a Witness and 
Criminal Contempt. 
 
3) 
On March 19, 2004, Hassett entered a “no contest” plea in the 
Superior Court to four counts of Rape in the Third Degree.  He was 
sentenced to be incarcerated for a total of forty years at Level V, with credit 
for 143 days previously served.  The balance of the Level V sentence was 
suspended, after serving eight years at Level V, for twelve years of 
probation.  No appeal was taken from that sentence. 
 
4) 
On June 7, 2004, Hassett filed a motion for a reduction of his 
sentence.  He sought to eliminate the sentence on his fourth rape count, 
eliminate the restitution order, and reduce his Sex Offender Tier Level. The 
Superior Court denied the motion on June 14, 2004.  The Superior Court 
concluded that it had no authority to modify or reduce a sentence that was 
statutorily mandated.   
 
5) 
On appeal, Hassett argues that the Superior Court abused its 
discretion when it summarily denied his motion without holding an 
evidentiary hearing and investigating his serious medical complaints.  
Hassett argues that prisoner claims of inadequate medical treatment 
 
3
constitute “extraordinary circumstances” sufficient to justify a sentence 
reduction.   
 
6) 
It is manifest on the face of the Opening Brief that Hassett is 
not entitled to an evidentiary hearing and that the Superior Court properly 
denied Hassett’s motion for reduction of sentence. 
 
7) 
Hassett was convicted of four counts of Rape in the Third 
Degree, in violation of Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 711(a)(1).  That offense is a 
class B felony, for which the minimum mandatory sentence is two years to 
be served at Level V.1  The Superior Court correctly concluded that it had no 
authority to reduce Hassett’s mandatory Level V sentence.2 
 
8) 
Hassett argues that the Superior Court abused its discretion by 
not inquiring into his medical condition and complaints about inadequate 
care.  However, the Superior Court had no authority to consider Hassett’s 
application for sentence reduction based upon his alleged serious medical 
condition.  If a defendant is serving a mandatory sentence of incarceration, a 
sentence reduction based upon the defendant’s serious medical illness or 
                                          
 
1 Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 4217(f) (1974). 
2 Id.  See Briscoe v. State, 1994 WL 679721, at *1 (Del., Nov. 28, 1994) (stating “The 
Superior Court is not entitled to suspend any part of Briscoe’s minimum mandatory 
sentence, nor is Briscoe entitled to work release or any similar program prior to serving 
his three year minimum mandatory term of imprisonment.”). 
 
4
infirmity is only possible when the Department of Correction applies for a 
modification of sentence.3 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment 
of the Superior Court is affirmed. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                          
 
3 See Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, §§ 4217(b)-(f) (1974).