Title: Horsey v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
RAYQUIAN HORSEY, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 345, 2021 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID No. 1910015287 (K) 
§                     
§                     
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:   March 7, 20221 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: May 4, 2022 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; TRAYNOR and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, 
Justices. 
 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 
Upon consideration of the opening brief, motion to affirm, and record on 
appeal, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On March 31, 2020, Rayquian Horsey pled guilty to possession of a 
firearm by a person prohibited (“PFBPP”) in exchange for the dismissal of other 
drug and weapon charges.  On May 24, 2021, the Superior Court sentenced Horsey 
to eight years of Level V incarceration, suspended for one year of Level III 
probation.   As part of his sentence, Horsey was to be evaluated for substance abuse 
and to follow all recommended treatment.   
 
1 The motion to affirm was refiled on April 19, 2022 to include the exhibits referenced in 
the original motion. 
EFiled:  May 04 2022 08:26AM EDT 
Filing ID 67582707
Case Number 345,2021
2 
 
(2) 
On August 27, 2021, the Department of Correction filed a VOP report.  
The VOP report alleged, among other things, that Horsey had been charged with 
new crimes, failed to report to his probation officer since May, and failed to complete 
a substance abuse evaluation.  After a hearing on October 22, 2021, the Superior 
Court found that Horsey had violated his probation.  The Superior Court sentenced 
Horsey, effective October 1, 2021, to seven years and six months of Level V 
incarceration, suspended after one year for decreasing levels of supervision.  This 
appeal followed.   
(3) 
In his opening brief, Horsey does not dispute that he violated his 
probation, but instead contends that the VOP sentence was “extreme” for a first, 
technical VOP.2   This Court’s appellate review of a sentence is extremely limited 
and generally ends upon a determination that the sentence is within statutory limits.3  
If the sentence falls within the statutory limits, “we consider only whether it is based 
on factual predicates which are false, impermissible, or lack minimal reliability, 
judicial vindictiveness or bias, or a closed mind.”4   
 
2 Opening Br. 1.  In the combined notice of appeal and opening brief he filed on October 
28, 2021, Horsey also argued that his VOP counsel was ineffective for advising Horsey 
that he needed to file his own notice of appeal if he wished to appeal the VOP sentence.  
He is mistaken.  Supreme Court Rule 26(l) provides that defense counsel satisfies his 
continuing obligation in VOP proceedings if he advises his client, in writing, of any right 
to appeal, whether defense counsel will continue representation on appeal, and that if the 
client wishes to appeal, he must file a notice of appeal within thirty days.  The record 
reflects Horsey’s VOP counsel satisfied Rule 26(l). 
3 Kurzmann v. State, 903 A.2d 702, 714 (Del. 2006). 
4 Id.  
3 
 
(4) 
Once Horsey 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 Horsey’s sentence.5  Horsey does not argue that the VOP sentence exceeded 
statutory limits or the Level V time previously suspended.  Nor has Horsey identified 
any basis to suggest that the VOP sentence was based on factual predicates that are 
false, impermissible, or lack minimal reliability, judicial vindictiveness or bias, or a 
closed mind.  It is manifest on the face of Horsey’s opening brief that his appeal is 
without merit. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to affirm is 
GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Tamika R. Montgomery-Reeves 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
5 11 Del. C. § 4334(c); Pavulak v. State, 880 A.2d 1044, 1046 (Del. 2005).