Title: Shabazz v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
STANLEY E. SHABAZZ, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 545, 2004  
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr.A. Nos. IN96-05-1687 and  
§    IN96-09-0450 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: April 25, 2005 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: June 14, 2005 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
This 14th day of June 2005, upon consideration of the opening brief, 
the State’s motion to affirm, and the record below, it appears to the Court 
that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Stanley Shabazz, filed this appeal 
from the Superior Court’s denial of his motion to modify or correct his 
sentence.  The State has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment on 
the ground that it is manifest on the face of Shabazz’s opening brief that his 
appeal is without merit.  We agree and affirm. 
 
2
(2) 
The record reflects that Shabazz pled guilty in January 1997 to 
two charges of second degree burglary.  Prior to sentencing, he moved to 
withdraw his plea.  After appointing substitute counsel, the Superior Court 
denied Shabazz’s motion in October 1998.  Thereafter, Shabazz was 
sentenced to a total of sixteen years at Level V incarceration, to be 
suspended after serving ten years for decreasing levels of supervision.  This 
Court affirmed on appeal.1     
(3) 
Shabazz filed his latest motion contending that the Superior 
Court had sentenced him in excess of the presumptive sentence called for 
under the sentencing guidelines.  Shabazz argues that this violated his rights 
as set forth in the United States Supreme Court’s decisions in Apprendi v. 
New Jersey2 and Blakely v. Washington.3  The Superior Court denied 
Shabazz’s motion.  This appeal followed.  
(4) 
It is well-established that appellate review of a criminal 
sentence is limited in Delaware, with few exceptions, to a determination that 
the sentence is within the statutory limits.4  In this case, Shabazz’s sentence 
fell within the statutory range of authorized sentences for second degree 
                                                 
1 Shabazz v. State, 1999 WL 1192969 (Del. Nov. 30, 1999). 
2 530 U.S. 466 (2000). 
3 124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004)  
4 See Siple v. State, 701 A.2d 79, 82-83 (Del. 1997). 
 
3
burglary.5  As we have held in similar cases, neither Apprendi nor Blakely 
impact this outcome given the voluntary and nonbinding nature of 
Delaware’s sentencing guidelines.6  
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/Henry duPont Ridgely_ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                                 
5 11 Del. C. § 4205(b)(4) (establishing a sentencing range of up to 8 years for 
class D felonies). 
6 Accord Benge v. State, 2004 WL 2743431 (Del. Nov. 12, 2004).