Title: Grimm v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
LAWRENCE D. GRIMM, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 55, 2018 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID Nos. 1608020713 & 
§  1701007271 (K) 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:  March 20, 2018 
 
 
 
 
Decided:     April 13, 2018 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 13th day of April 2018, upon consideration of the appellant’s opening 
brief, the appellee’s motion to affirm, and the record below, it appears to the Court 
that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Lawrence D. Grimm, filed this appeal from the Superior 
Court’s January 2, 2018 order sentencing him for a violation of probation (“VOP”).  
The State of Delaware has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment on the 
ground that it is manifest on the face of Grimm’s opening brief that the appeal is 
without merit.  We agree and affirm.     
(2) 
The record reflects that, in March 2017, Grimm resolved two different 
criminal cases by pleading guilty to Operating a Clandestine Laboratory and Theft 
2 
 
Over $1,500.  Grimm was sentenced as follows: (i) for Operating a Clandestine 
Laboratory, effective January 13, 2017, eight years of Level V incarceration 
suspended after six months for one year of Level III probation; and (ii) for Theft 
Over $1,500, two years of Level V incarceration, suspended for one year of Level 
III probation.  Grimm did not appeal the Superior Court’s judgment. 
(3) 
On July 18, 2017, a capias was issued for Grimm’s VOP.  The VOP 
report alleged that Grimm had violated his probation by failing to report to Maryland 
to resolve an outstanding capias as directed by his probation officer and failing to 
report to his probation officer on a weekly basis.  After a hearing on January 2, 2018, 
the Superior Court found that Grimm had violated his probation.  The Superior Court 
sentenced Grimm for his VOP as follows: (i) for Operating a Clandestine 
Laboratory, effective November 29, 2017, seven years and six months of Level V 
incarceration, suspended after six months for one year of Level III probation; and 
(ii) for Theft Over $1,500, two years of Level V incarceration, suspended for one 
year of Level III probation.  This appeal followed. 
(4) 
In his opening brief on appeal, Grimm argues that: (i) the Level V time 
imposed for his VOP exceeded the guidelines established by the Sentencing 
Accountability Commission (“SENTAC”); (ii) the Superior Court judge was 
vindictive and close-minded in sentencing him for his VOP; (iii) his probation 
officer engaged in misconduct at the VOP hearing; and (iv) incarceration and 
3 
 
probation do not help his phobias regarding detention and strangers intruding in his 
space.  Grimm does not dispute that he violated his probation.   
(5) 
None of Grimm’s claims have merit.  First, it is well-settled that the 
SENTAC guidelines are voluntary and do not provide a basis for appeal of a sentence 
that is within the authorized statutory limits.1  Second, the Court has no adequate 
basis to review Grimm’s claims that the Superior Court judge was biased or that his 
probation officer engaged in misconduct at the VOP hearing.  As the appealing party, 
Grimm was required to—but did not—request a transcript of the January 2, 2018 
VOP hearing for this appeal.2  In the absence of the transcript, the Court cannot 
review Grimm’s claims regarding the Superior Court judge’s alleged bias or the 
alleged misconduct of the probation officer at the VOP hearing.3      
(6) 
Finally, this Court’s appellate review of a sentence is extremely limited 
and generally ends upon a determination that the sentence is within statutory limits.4  
Once Grimm committed a VOP, the Superior Court could impose any period of 
incarceration up to and including the balance of the Level V time remaining on 
                                                 
1 Siple v. State, 701 A.2d 79, 83 (Del. 1997). 
2 Supr. Ct. R. 14(e) (“Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, the appellant's appendix shall contain 
such portions of the trial transcript as are necessary to give this Court a fair and accurate account 
of the context in which the claim of error occurred and must include a transcript of all evidence 
relevant to the challenged finding or conclusion.”).  See also Tricoche v. State, 525 A.2d 151, 154 
(Del. 1987). 
3 See, e.g., Rittenhouse v. State, 2014 WL 5690489, at *2 (Del. Nov. 3, 2014) (“In the absence of 
a transcript, we cannot evaluate a claim that the sentencing judge relied on impermissible factors 
or exhibited a closed mind.”). 
4 Kurzmann v. State, 903 A.2d 702, 714 (Del. 2006). 
4 
 
Grimm’s sentences.5  The Level V sentence imposed by the Superior Court after 
Grimm’s VOP did not exceed the Level V time previously suspended and was within 
statutory limits.         
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is 
GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
 
                                                 
5 11 Del. C. § 4334(c); Pavulak v. State, 880 A.2d 1044, 1046 (Del. 2005).