Title: Berryman v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ALESIA BERRYMAN,   
 
' 
' 
No. 463, 2005 
Defendant Below,  
 
' 
Appellant,  
 
 
' 
Court Below: Superior Court 
' 
of the State of Delaware  
v. 
 
 
 
 
 
' 
in and for New Castle 
' 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
' 
No. 0412021910 
' 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
' 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
' 
 
 
Submitted:  February 21, 2006 
 
Decided:  April 11, 2006 
 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices. 
ORDER 
This 11th day of April 2006, upon consideration of the briefs and the parties it 
appears to the Court that: 
1) 
Defendant-Appellant, Alesia Berryman appeals her conviction of identity 
theft, unlawful use of a credit card, and theft.1  Defendant makes two claims.  First, 
she claims that the Superior Court abused its discretion by denying her the opportunity 
to plea to lesser included offenses after final case review.  Second, she claims that the 
Superior Court denied her a fair trial when it refused to instruct the jury on lesser 
included charges of identity theft, unlawful use of a credit card, and theft.  We find no 
                                                 
1 In violation of 11 Del. C. §§ 854, 903, and 841, respectively.   
 
2
merit to either claim and affirm. 
2) 
Consistent with Criminal Rule 50, the Superior Court has adopted a 
Criminal Case Management Plan for each county.  Prior to a trial of a criminal case 
there is an initial case review (ICR) and final case review (FCR).  Under the New 
Castle County Plan, the prosecutor is expected to have made a substantive plea offer 
before initial case review to defense counsel “who shall inform the defendant of the 
offer.”2  The Superior Court requires defense counsel “ to discuss the status of the case 
with a client and the plea offer that has been tendered by the Attorney General.”3  If 
the parties do not resolve the case by a plea agreement, the parties are expected to 
address the status of discovery, any particular or unique problems requiring judicial 
assistance, and any outstanding motions.  Under the Plan, “[i]f a matter is not resolved 
at the ICR, the defendant will be required to sign a notice to appear for a FCR, and 
will be advised to come to the FCR prepared to make final decisions about the case, 
since after FCR significant limitations will be placed on what plea offers will be 
accepted by the Court.”4 
3) 
The final case review “is the final courtroom event prior to setting the 
                                                 
2 New Castle County Criminal Case Management Plan at p. 4. 
3 Id. 
4 Id. at p. 5. 
 
3
case for trial.”5  Defense counsel is expected to have “thoroughly reviewed with the 
client the plea offer extended by the Deputy Attorney General (DAG) and the 
consequences of accepting or rejecting that plea.”6  If the case is not resolved, the 
judges tell the defendant in open court that if the defendant desires to enter a guilty 
plea on the day of trial, the only plea the Court will accept is one to all of the charges 
in the indictment or information.  The case review judge has the discretion at FCR to 
order a second FCR if counsel provides reasonable justification “to warrant additional 
time to attempt to resolve the case.”7 
4) 
In this case, the prosecution offered a plea to two misdemeanors at the 
initial case review.  Berryman rejected the offer.  Later, at the final case review, the 
prosecution renewed its same plea offer.  Berryman again rejected the misdemeanor 
plea offer.  Defense counsel requested permission to accept the plea offer three months 
later.  The Superior Court inquired whether additional time after final case review had 
been authorized.  After defense counsel responded he did not know, the Superior 
Court denied the request as untimely and the case proceeded to trial.  On the morning 
of trial, the request was renewed, but it was denied by the trial judge because the 
administrative judge had done so. 
                                                 
5 Id. at p. 6.  See also In re Hillis, 858 A.2d 325, 327 (Del. 2004) (“Case reviews are an attempt 
to exhaust every opportunity to dispose of cases before valuable trial dates are set aside.  They 
are an important mechanism in the criminal case management process…”). 
6 Id. 
 
4
5) 
At trial, Ms. Vera Weaver testified that in December of 2004 and January 
of 2005, she noticed several unauthorized purchases on her MBNA credit card.  
Specifically, there were purchases made to “Dr.Jays.com,” a clothing retail store in 
California.8  Additionally, there were charges for “Nextel phones…and some calling 
cards.”9  The clothing ordered from Dr.Jays.com was shipped to 54 Rose Lane, New 
Castle, Delaware.10  Defendant resided at 54 Rose Lane, New Castle, Delaware.11   
6) 
MBNA subsequently contacted Ms. Weaver regarding a suspicious 
application for an additional credit card.  This application stated that the applicant’s 
place of employment was at Rite-Aid.  Defendant was employed as a pharmacy 
cashier at the Rite-Aid on New Castle Avenue, New Castle County.12  She conducted 
financial transactions among her regular duties.13  Ms. Weaver testified that she had 
seen Defendant working at Rite-Aid during her four or five monthly trips there.14  She 
also testified that she was 72 years old at the time of the incident.15     
7) 
“A defendant has no constitutional right to have the court accept a plea 
                                                                                                                                                             
7 Id. 
8 A-79; 119-23.   
9 A-79. 
10 A-121. 
11 A-83; 91.  Defendant was also arrested at 54 Rose Lane.   
12 A-80; 83.   
13 A-83. 
14 A-80. 
15 A-79.  When a victim’s age exceeds 62 years, it is an element for a crime with higher available 
penalties. 
 
5
agreement.”16  “Trial courts have significant control over and discretion in the 
management of their dockets and the scheduling of cases.”17  “The decision to accept 
or refuse a plea is committed to the discretion of the trial court and this Court, 
therefore, reviews for abuse of discretion.”18   
8) 
We find no abuse of discretion by the Superior Court because Berryman 
twice rejected the plea offer she ultimately wished to accept, both at initial case review 
and at final case review and she provided no good cause for excusing the timing of her 
decision.19   
9) 
Berryman’s second claim is that the Superior Court abused its discretion 
when it refused to instruct the jury on lesser included charges of identity theft, 
unlawful use of a credit card, and theft.  The defense appears to have requested that 
the jury be instructed on the lesser crimes for the same conduct but without the 
element of a victim over the age of 62.  The Superior Court refused to so instruct the 
jury, because the testimony of the victim was that she was 72 at the time of the crime. 
    
10) 
Berryman contends that such a fact-based element of a crime is properly 
                                                 
16 Slade v. State, Del. Supr., 746 A.2d 277, ¶4 (2000) (Order) (quoted by Washington v. State, 
Del. Supr., No. 435, 2003, Veasey, CJ, 844 A.2d 293, 297 n.5 (2004)). 
17 Washington v. State, Del. Supr., No. 435, 2003, Veasey, CJ, 844 A.2d 293, 295 (2004).   
18 Id. (quoted by Washington, 844 A.2d at 295 n.1). 
19 Compare People v. Jasper, 17 P.3d 807, 814 (Colo. 2001) (“generally, good cause must be 
something more than a mere change of mind or a renegotiation by the parties.”). 
 
6
the exclusive province of the jury.  She has failed to meet her burden of showing any 
evidence to rebut the testimony of the victim about her age.  Nor has she shown any 
reason why any rational juror could have found that the victim was in fact under the 
age of 62.   
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court 
is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT:  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice