Title: Johnson v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
DAVON R. JOHNSON,  
§
§
No. 316, 2009
Defendant Below,
§
Appellant,
§
§
Court Below:  Superior Court
v.
§
of the State of Delaware,
§
in and for New Castle County
STATE OF DELAWARE,
§
§
Cr. No. 0704013046
Plaintiff Below, 
§
Appellee.
§
Submitted:  March 10, 2010
Decided:  May 10, 2010
Before BERGER, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices.
O R D E R
This 10  day of May, on consideration of the briefs of the parties, it appears to
th
the Court that:
1) Davon R. Johnson appeals from the Superior Court’s denial of his Motion for
Sentence Modification.  Johnson and his co-defendants, who were armed, went to New
Castle, Delaware, to commit robbery in order to obtain marijuana.  Shots were fired
and Rashaan Dixon was killed.  Another person suffered a gunshot wound in her ankle.
Johnson was charged with felony murder, second degree murder, first degree attempted
robbery, second degree conspiracy, second degree assault, first degree reckless
2
endangering, and five counts of possession of a deadly weapon during the commission
of a felony.  Johnson pled guilty to manslaughter, first degree attempted robbery and
second degree conspiracy.  He also agreed to testify for the State.
2) The Superior Court sentenced Johnson and his two co-defendants on
December 9, 2009.  Before sentencing Johnson, the trial court heard testimony from
the victim’s family, Johnson’s allocution, and arguments from counsel.  The State
recommended a sentence of 15 years at Level V for the manslaughter, 5 years at Level
V for the attempted robbery, and two years of probation for the conspiracy.  The
Superior Court sentenced Johnson to 25 years at Level 5, suspended after 20 years,
followed by decreasing levels of probation for the manslaughter; 15 years at Level V
suspended after 5 years followed by probation for the attempted robbery; and two years
at Level V suspended for probation for the conspiracy.
3) Johnson filed a Motion for Sentence Modification, arguing that his sentence
should be reduced because his two co-defendants, who participated in the same
criminal conduct,  received significantly lighter sentences.  The trial court denied his
motion.  On appeal, Johnson argues that the trial court abused its discretion by basing
its sentencing decision, in part, on the presentence  report, which contains unreliable
information.  In addition, Johnson repeats the claim that his sentence was too severe
when compared to his co-defendants’ sentences.
Mayes v. State, 604 A.2d 839, 842 (Del. 1992).
1
Id. at 843.
2
3
4) Generally, this Court will not review a sentence that is within the limits
prescribed by the legislature.   But, it is an abuse of discretion for a sentencing court
1
to base its sentence on inaccurate or unreliable information.  In reviewing the basis for
a trial court’s sentence, “this Court will not find error of law or abuse of discretion
unless it is clear from the record below that a sentence has been imposed on the basis
of demonstrably false information or information lacking a minimal indicium of
reliability.”2
5) Johnson’s appeal lacks merit.  The presentence report consists almost entirely
of Johnson’s prior criminal record and the numerous police reports detailing the
investigation.  Naturally, the notes of interviews with witnesses or potential witnesses
include hearsay or even double hearsay.  But the police reports do not purport to be
authoritative statements about Johnson’s criminal activity.  They are simply summaries
of the witness interviews.  As such, the police reports are sufficiently reliable to
withstand review.  The same is true for the evaluation provided by the Investigative
Services Officer.  That narrative compiles basic information about Johnson’s
background and offers a view about his prospects for improvement.  Johnson points
Crosby v. State, 824 A.2d 894, 908 (Del. 2003) (Quotation omitted.)
3
4
to no statement in the evaluation that is “demonstrably false” and offers no basis on
which to conclude that it is unreliable. 
6) Finally, with regard to the length of Johnson’s sentence, a comparison of the
crimes he committed and the sentence imposed does not “lead to an inference of gross
disproportionality.”   Accordingly, it is not relevant whether other co-defendants
3
received lesser sentences.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgments of the Superior
Court be, and the same hereby are, AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Carolyn Berger
Justice