Title: Hawkins v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DONNIE RAY HAWKINS, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 146, 2010 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below—Superior Court  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware in and 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
for Sussex County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
Cr. ID No. 0411002216A  
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: September 16, 2010 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
December 9, 2010 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 9th day of December 2010, upon careful consideration of the 
appellant’s brief pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 26(c), his attorney’s 
motion to withdraw, and the State’s response thereto, it appears to the Court 
that: 
 
(1) 
On April 19, 2005, the appellant, Donnie Ray Hawkins, was 
found guilty by a Superior Court jury of numerous offenses including two 
counts of Possession of a Deadly Weapon During the Commission of a 
Felony (PDWDCF).  On June 7, 2005, Hawkins was sentenced to a total of 
forty-four years and sixty days at Level V, no portion of which was 
suspended for probation (“original sentence”).  For the PDWDCF 
 
2
convictions, Hawkins was sentenced to a total of twenty years at Level V, 
i.e., ten years for each conviction.  Hawkins’ convictions were affirmed by 
this Court on direct appeal.1 
 
(2) 
On September 4, 2009, the Superior Court issued a modified 
sentence order.  That order corrected an error in the original sentence by 
removing a mistaken reference to three years of mandatory time in each of 
the ten-year terms imposed for the PDWDCF convictions.  Except for that 
correction, the modified sentence remained the same as the original 
sentence.  The modification had no substantive effect. 
 
(3) 
On February 24, 2010, Hawkins, through counsel, requested an 
opportunity to appear in open court in connection with the September 4, 
2009 modified sentence.  The Superior Court granted that request, and 
Hawkins and his counsel appeared before the Superior Court on March 12, 
2010.  During that review of sentence proceeding, the Superior Court 
explained the modified sentence to Hawkins.  This appeal followed. 
 
(4) 
On appeal, Hawkins’ counsel (“Counsel”) has filed a brief and 
a motion to withdraw pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 26(c) (“Rule 26(c)”).  
Counsel asserts that, based upon a complete and careful examination of the 
record, there are no arguably appealable issues.  Hawkins has raised several 
                                          
 
1 Hawkins v. State, 2006 WL 1932668 (Del. Supr.). 
 
3
points for this Court’s consideration.  The State has responded to Counsel’s 
brief as well as to Hawkins’ points and has requested that the judgment of 
the Superior Court be affirmed. 
 
(5) 
In his written submission, Hawkins claims that the Superior 
Court erred when imposing a twenty-year sentence for the PDWDCF 
convictions.  Hawkins claims that, under the terms of the original sentence, 
he was “under the impression” that he was only going to serve six of the 
twenty years imposed.  Hawkins also claims that the twenty-year sentence 
violates the Eighth Amendment because it exceeds his life expectancy and is 
disproportionate to other sentences imposed for the same conduct. 
 
(6) 
“Delaware law is well established that appellate review of 
sentences is extremely limited.”2  In Delaware, “`[a]ppellate review of a 
sentence generally ends upon determination that the sentence is within the 
statutory limits prescribed by the legislature.’”3  “[I]n reviewing a sentence 
within statutory limits, 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.”4 
                                          
 
2 Mayes v. State, 604 A.2d 839, 842 (Del. 1992). 
3 Id. (quoting Ward v. State, 567 A.2d 1296, 1297 (Del. 1989)). 
4 Mayes, 604 A.2d at 843. 
 
4
 
(7) 
The statutory range of incarceration for PDWDCF is two to 
twenty-five years.5  Any sentence imposed for PDWDCF is mandatory, i.e., 
it must be served without suspension, good time or probation.6  In this case, 
Hawkins was sentenced to ten years for each PDWDCF conviction, a 
sentence well within the statutory range. 
 
(8) 
There is no indication in the record that the Superior Court 
imposed Hawkins’ sentence  Based on “demonstrably false information or 
information lacking a minimal indicium of reliability.”  There also is no 
suggestion in the record supporting Hawkins’ alleged “mistaken impression” 
that he would serve only six of the twenty-year sentence imposed for the 
PDWDCF convictions. 
 
(9) 
When reviewing a motion to withdraw and an accompanying 
brief under Rule 26(c), the Court must be satisfied that defense counsel has 
made a conscientious examination of the record and the law for arguable 
claims.7  The Court also must conduct its own review of the record and 
determine whether the appeal is so totally devoid of at least arguably 
appealable issues that it can be decided without an adversary presentation.8 
                                          
 
5 Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, §§ 1447(a), 4205(b)(2) (1997).    
6 § 1447(b).  
7 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 
U.S. 429, 442 (1988); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).  
8 Id. 
 
5
 
(10) In this case, the Court has reviewed the record carefully and has 
concluded that Hawkins’ appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any 
arguably appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Counsel made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and properly 
determined that Hawkins could not raise a meritorious claim in this appeal. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to 
affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.  
The motion to withdraw is moot. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs 
 
 
 
 
 
 
      Justice