IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

MICHAEL J. PASQUALE, § § No. 697, 2013 Defendant Below, § Appellant, § Court Below—Superior Court § the State of Delaware in and for v. § New Castle County § STATE OF DELAWARE, § § Plaintiff Below, § Cr. ID No. 1012012086 Appellee. § Submitted: September 19, 2014 Decided: September 22, 2014

Before HOLLAND , RIDGELY and VALIHURA , Justices.

O R D E R

This 22 nd day of September 2014, upon consideration of the a ppellant’s opening brief, the appellee’s motion to affirm file d under Supreme Court Rule 25(a), and the Superior Court record, 1 it appears to the Court that: (1) The appellant, Michael J. Pasquale, filed this appeal from the Superior Court’s December 12, 2013 denial of his motion for correction of illegal sentence and related motions. The appellee, State of Delawa re, has filed a motion to affirm

1 The Court has not considered Pasquale’s “motion fo r permission to respond to State’s motion to affirm under extraordinary circumstances.” Unde r Rule 25(a), a response to a motion to affirm is not permitted unless it is requested by t he Court.2

the Superior Court judgment on the ground that it i s manifest on the face of Pasquale’s opening brief that the appeal is without merit. We agree and affirm. (2) The record reflects that Pasquale pled guilty o n November 11, 2011, to Driving under the Influence, seventh offense or more (hereinafter “DUI 7+”) based on nine prior convictions for DUI-related off enses. The transcript of the plea hearing reflects that Pasquale understood that he was pleading guilty to DUI 7+, and that the penalty for that offense was up to fifteen years incarceration. 2 On March 9, 2012, the Superior Court sentenced Pasqual e to ten years at Level V suspended after six years for four years at Level I V suspended after six months for eighteen months at Level III probation. (3) In April 2012, Pasquale filed two pro se motions and one letter seeking a reduction of his sentence. In June 2012, Pasquale, with the assistance of counsel, filed a motion for modification of sentenc e. The Superior Court denied the motion by order dated November 20, 2012. Pasqu ale did not appeal the

decision. (4) On March 21, 2013, Pasquale filed a pro se “motion for

reconsideration of motion for sentence modification (correction).” By order dated March 28, 2013, the Superior Court denied the motio n as time-barred and

2 See 21 Del. C. § 4177(d)(7) (2011) (providing that a p erson convicted of DUI “[f]or a seventh offense occurring any time after 6 prior offenses, or for any subsequent offense” is guilty of a class C felony, and shall be “imprisoned not less t han 10 years nor greater than 15 years”).3

repetitive. Again, Pasquale did not appeal. Inste ad, in April 2013 he continued filing pro se letters seeking relief from his sentence, which th e Superior Court denied by order dated July 30, 2013. When Pasquale continued seeking relief in letters that became increasingly vitriolic, the Sup erior Court admonished him in a hearing held on September 12, 2013, and told him th at the letters were inappropriate and must stop. (5) Undaunted, Pasquale began filing motions seekin g relief from his sentence and related motions seeking, among other t hings, the appointment of counsel, the preparation of transcript at State exp ense, and to amend prior motions. Pasquale also filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. By order dated November 18, 2013, the Superior Court denied the pe tition. Pasquale did not appeal. (6) By order dated December 12, 2013, the Superior Court denied Pasquale’s serially-filed motions for relief from s entence, for appointment of counsel, for correction of illegal sentence, for am endment of correction of illegal sentence motion, for change of judge, for expedited correction of illegal sentence motion, and for status of correction of illegal sen tence motion. The court further

ruled: [Pasquale’s] relentless and meritless filings are w asting

judicial resources. If [Pasquale] continues to abu se the judicial process with frivolous filings, he will be enjoined from filing any future claims concerning his ninth DUI4 without first seeking leave of Court. [Pasquale] r efuses to accept the fact that he knowingly, intelligently pled guilty and that his sentence is lawful. 3 This appeal followed. (7) On appeal, Pasquale claims that his sentence is illegal, his guilty plea was involuntary, his defense counsel was ineffectiv e, the prosecutor breached the plea agreement, and the judge imposed the sentence with a “closed mind.” To evaluate Pasquale’s claims, the Court, in its discr etion, requested that the Superior Court prepare and file transcripts of Pasquale’s No vember 11, 2011 guilty plea, March 9, 2012 sentencing, and the September 12, 201 3 hearing. Having considered the parties’ positions on appeal and the Superior Court record as supplemented, the Court has concluded that the Supe rior Court’s December 12,

2013 order should be affirmed. (8) It is well-established that a sentence is illeg al if it exceeds the statutory limits, violates double jeopardy, is ambi guous or inconsistent, or omits a required term. 4 On appeal, Pasquale claims that his sentence is i llegal for all of those reasons and more. He also claims that his gu ilty plea was involuntary, his defense counsel was ineffective, and the prosecutor breached the plea agreement. All of Pasquale’s claims are belied by the record, however, which reflects that

3 See State v. Pasquale , Del. Super., Cr. ID No. 1012012086, (Dec. 12, 201 3) (order) (citing 10 Del. C. § 8803(e) and Smith v. State , 2009 WL 2888258, at *1 (Del. Sept. 10, 2009)).

4 Brittingham v. State , 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998).5

Pasquale voluntarily pled guilty to DUI 7+ on Novem ber 11, 2011, and was sentenced appropriately and legally on March 9, 201 2. (9) Pasquale next claims that the Superior Court ju dge who imposed the sentence on March 9, 2012, did so with a closed min d, as evidenced by remarks made by the judge at the September 12, 2013 hearing . Pasquale’s claim that the judge imposed the sentence with a closed mind is wi thout merit. “A judge

sentences with a closed mind when the sentence is b ased on a preconceived bias

without consideration of the nature of the offense or the character of the

defendant.” 5 In this case, the sentencing transcript reflects that the judge considered both aggravating and mitigating factors in Pasquale’s case and gave Pasquale an opportunity to address the court before imposing the sentence. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s moti on to affirm is GRANTED. The judgment of the Superior Court is AFF IRMED.

BY THE COURT: /s/ Henry duPont Ridgely Justice

5 Weston v. State , 832 A.2d 742, 746 (Del. 2003).