Title: Anderson v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
PETE ANDERSON,
Defendant Below-
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF DELAWARE,
Plaintiff Below-
Appellee.
§
§
§  No. 220, 2001
§
§
§  Court Below—Superior Court
§  of the State of Delaware,
§  in and for New Castle County
§  Cr.A. Nos. IN91-10-1616 RI
§                   IN91-10-0471 RI
§
Submitted: October 2, 2001
  Decided:   October 12, 2001
Before WALSH, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices
O R D E R
This 12th day of October 2001, upon consideration of the appellant’s
opening brief, the appellee’s motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme Court
Rule 25(a), the appellant’s response to the motion to affirm, the appellee’s
reply, the Superior Court’s September 6, 2001 report following remand, and
the parties’ supplemental submissions, it appears to the Court that:
(1)
The defendant-appellant, Pete Anderson, appealed from an
order of the Superior Court denying his motion for reduction/modification of
sentence.1  Plaintiff-appellee State of Delaware originally moved to affirm
                                                          
1Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35.
2
the judgment of the Superior Court on the ground that it was manifest on the
face of the opening brief that the appeal was without merit.2  After the filing
of Anderson’s response to the motion to affirm, however, the State proposed
that this Court hold in abeyance its disposition of the motion to affirm
pending remand to the Superior Court for further proceedings.  We adopted
the State’s proposal and remanded the matter to the Superior Court.  On
September 10, 2001, the Superior Court filed its report dated September 6,
2001.
(2)
The record reflects that, on May 11, 1992, Anderson pleaded
guilty to Assault in the First Degree and Possession of a Deadly Weapon
During the Commission of a Felony.  On July 24, 1992, the sentencing
hearing was held.  On the assault conviction, Anderson received a sentence
of 10 years incarceration at Level V, to be followed by 6 months at Level III.
On the weapon charge, he received a sentence of 20 years incarceration at
Level V.  Anderson did not file a direct appeal of his convictions or
sentences.  His motions for postconviction relief were denied by the
Superior Court.
(3)
In his appeal, Anderson claimed that his July 24, 1992
sentences were enhanced significantly above the SENTAC guidelines based
                                                          
2Supr. Ct. R. 25(a).
3
upon the Superior Court judge’s mistaken belief that he had more than one
prior violent felony conviction.3  In essence, Anderson claimed that his
sentences were based upon a false factual predicate.4  Following remand, the
Superior Court ordered the transcript of Anderson’s July 24, 1992
sentencing hearing and submissions from Anderson and the State.  Based on
its review of these materials as well as the SENTAC guidelines in effect in
1992, the Superior Court determined that Anderson was convicted of two
violent felonies prior to July 24, 1992,5 that both offenses qualified under the
SENTAC guidelines as violent felonies for purposes of determining
aggravating circumstances, and that Anderson’s July 24, 1992 sentences
were within the SENTAC guidelines.
(4)
We have reviewed the Superior Court’s report, the transcript of
the sentencing hearing, the SENTAC guidelines in effect in 1992 and the
parties’ supplemental submissions.  We conclude that the Superior Court’s
determination is correct and that Anderson’s claim that his sentences were
based upon a false factual predicate is without merit. Anderson is incorrect
                                                          
3The sentencing judge has retired from the Superior Court.
4Siple v. State, Del. Supr., 701 A.2d 79, 83 (1997).
5Specifically, on October 9, 1988, Anderson was convicted of Unlawful Sexual
Intercourse in the Third Degree and Unlawful Sexual Contact in the First Degree,
stemming from two separate incidents.
4
that, under the SENTAC guidelines, his two prior convictions should have
been consolidated for sentencing purposes and that he was sentenced
improperly on the weapon conviction as the lead offense.6  Moreover, as the
guidelines reflect, Anderson’s 20-year sentence for Possession of a Deadly
Weapon During the Commission of a Felony, a Class B Felony,7 and his 10-
year sentence for Assault in the First Degree, a Class C Felony,8 were within
the statutory range for those offenses.9  As such, absent evidence of a false
factual predicate, Anderson has no right to appellate review of his
sentences.10
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the
Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Randy J. Holland
Justice
                                                          
6Delaware Truth-in-Sentencing Bench Book (Revised May 25, 1991), pp. 17, 19, 55.
711 Del. C. § 1447.
811 Del. C. § 613.
911 Del. C. § 4205(b) (2) and (3).
10Siple v. State, 701 A.2d at 83.