Title: Albanese v. Sttae

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
THOMAS ALBANESE,  
 
§  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 654, 2011 
 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below–Superior Court of  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
the State of Delaware in and for 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
Sussex County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
Cr. ID No. 0909016578 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Submitted: May 18, 2012 
Decided: 
July 31, 2012 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices.  
 
O R D E R 
 
This 31st day of July 2012, upon consideration of the briefs of the 
parties and the Superior Court record, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Thomas Albanese, filed this appeal from a 
corrected sentence imposed on November 17, 2011.  We conclude there is 
no merit to the appeal and affirm. 
(2) 
The trial court proceedings leading to the imposition of the 
corrected sentence are as follows.  In April 2010, Albanese pled guilty to 
Driving under the Influence (hereinafter “DUI”) and was sentenced in June 
2 
 
2010 as a seven-time DUI offender (hereinafter “the 2010 sentence”).1  
Albanese did not file an appeal. 
(3) 
On September 21, 2011, Albanese filed a “motion for 
correction of illegal sentence or alternatively motion for reduction of 
sentence” pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 35 (hereinafter “Rule 35 
motion”).  Albanese asked the Superior Court to vacate or reduce the 2010 
sentence on the basis that he did not have the requisite prior DUI offenses 
qualifying him for sentencing as a seven-time offender.  Albanese also 
alleged that his defense counsel (hereinafter “Defense Counsel”) was 
ineffective for having failed to recognize the Superior Court’s sentencing 
error.2 
(4) 
By order dated October 4, 2011, the Superior Court denied the 
Rule 35 motion on the basis that the 2010 sentence was reasonable and 
appropriate.  Moreover, the court advised Albanese that his allegations of 
ineffective assistance of counsel were not cognizable under Rule 35 and 
must be raised pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 (hereinafter 
“Rule 61”). 
                                          
 
1 Albanese was sentenced after a presentence investigation. 
2 The Court notes that without the sentencing transcript, which Albanese did not request 
as part of this appeal, the record does not reflect the parties’ positions or the procedures 
followed at the 2010 sentencing. 
3 
 
(5) 
On November 2, 2011, Albanese filed a motion for 
postconviction relief under Rule 61 (hereinafter “Rule 61 motion”) claiming 
that he was illegally sentenced as a seven-time DUI offender and that 
Defense Counsel was ineffective.  On November 8, 2011, the Superior Court 
sent a two-page letter to Albanese in response to the Rule 61 motion.3  The 
Superior Court informed Albanese that based on a further review it appeared 
that Albanese should have been sentenced as a six-time DUI offender.4  The 
court therefore scheduled the matter for a “potential re-sentencing” hearing 
on November 17, 2011 and advised Albanese that he could inform the court 
on November 17 if he believed he should not be sentenced as a six-time DUI 
offender. 
(6) 
Albanese was represented by Defense Counsel at the November 
17, 2011 hearing and, at the suggestion of Defense Counsel, was given the 
opportunity to address the court.  Neither Defense Counsel nor Albanese 
proffered any reason why Albanese should not be resentenced as a six-time 
DUI offender.  Accordingly, the Superior Court sentenced Albanese as a six-
time offender.  This appeal followed. 
                                          
 
3 The Superior Court sent a copy of the letter to Defense Counsel and to counsel for the 
State. 
4 Specifically, the Superior Court advised Albanese that it appeared that he had 
“convictions for [DUI] in 1985, 1989, 1992, plus [a] conviction under the First Offender 
election in 2004, followed by what would be considered as a single conviction for the 
2005 and 2006 arrests.” 
4 
 
(7) 
Albanese complains on appeal that the Superior Court failed to 
sentence him in accordance with title 11, section 4215 of the Delaware 
Code.5  Albanese’s reliance on title 11, section 4215 is misplaced.  For a 
DUI offense, sentencing is governed by title 21, section 4177 of the 
Delaware Code.6 
(8) 
Albanese also claims that his claim of ineffective assistance of 
counsel in connection with the 2010 sentence should have disqualified 
Defense Counsel from representing him at the November 17, 2011 
resentencing.  According to Albanese, when analyzing his claim, this Court 
should view Defense Counsel’s inherent “conflict of interest” as the 
constructive denial of counsel and apply the presumed-prejudice standard 
found in United States v. Cronic.7 
(9) 
When a defendant alleges ineffective assistance of counsel 
arising from a conflict of interest, prejudice is presumed only if the 
defendant can demonstrate that an actual conflict of interest adversely 
affected counsel’s performance.8  In this case, Albanese has not 
demonstrated and the record does not reflect that Defense Counsel’s 
                                          
 
5 See Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 4215 (2007) (governing a sentence of greater punishment 
because of previous conviction under title 11).   
6 See Del. Code Ann. tit. 21, § 4177 (Supp. 2010) (governing DUI evidence, arrests and 
penalties). 
7 See United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 659-60 (1984) (articulating three situations 
in which prejudice is presumed in an ineffective assistance of counsel claim). 
8  Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259, 287 (2000).   
5 
 
performance at the November 17, 2011 resentencing was adversely affected 
by Albanese’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with 
the 2010 sentence.  To the extent Albanese argues otherwise, his claim is 
without merit. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED.  
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
  
 
 
 
 
Justice