Title: Daniels v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 330, 2000
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: July 30, 2001

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
ORRIN H. DANIELS,
§
§
No. 330, 2000
Defendant Below,
§
Appellant,
§
§
v.
§
Court Below: Superior Court
§
of the State of Delaware
STATE OF DELAWARE,
§
in and for Sussex County
§
CrA. Nos. 00-01-0035
Plaintiff Below,
§
through 0037
Appellee.
§
Submitted: May 22, 2001
Decided: July 30, 2001
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices.
O R D E R
This 30th day of July, 2001, on consideration of the briefs of the parties, it
appears to the Court that:
1) Orrin H. Daniels appeals the sentence he received after being convicted of
escape after conviction. The Superior Court sentenced him to eight years at Level V,
suspended after three years and successful completion of the Key Program for twelve
months at Level IV Crest, suspended after successful completion of Crest for four
and one-half years at Level III Crest After Care.  Daniels argues that the trial court
mistakenly assumed that the escape conviction was a Class B felony when it was a
Class D felony.
1Ward v. State, Del. Supr., 567 A.2d 1296, 1297 (1989).
2
2) Since the Superior Court never expressly ruled whether the escape
conviction was a Class B or a Class D felony, this Court remanded the matter for
a factual determination of that issue.  The Superior Court determined that it was a
Class D felony and stated that it had been the court’s intent to treat the conviction
as a Class D felony at the time of sentencing.
3) Daniels argues that his sentence was more severe than the offense required
and that the trial court abused its discretion.  This argument lacks merit.  It is settled
law that “[a]ppellate review of a sentence generally ends upon determination that the
sentence is within the statutory limits prescribed by the legislature.”1  There is
nothing in the record to suggest that the trial court relied on inaccurate or unreliable
information or otherwise abused its discretion.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior
Court be, and the same hereby is, AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Carolyn Berger
Justice