Title: Dailey v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 438, 2003
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: March 4, 2004

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DONALD L. DAILEY  
 
§   No. 438, 2003 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§  
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§  
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§  
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§   Court Below – Superior Court 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§   of the State of Delaware, 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§   in and for Sussex County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§   Cr.A. No. 0210012813 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§  
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§  
 
 
 
 
 
    Submitted:  January 12, 2004 
 
 
 
 
       Decided:  March 4, 2004 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and STEELE, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
This 4th day of March 2004, having considered the contentions set 
forth in the briefs of the parties on appeal, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Donald L. Dailey (“Dailey”), was 
charged with nine counts of Rape in the First Degree, without consent, and 
nine counts of Conspiracy in the First Degree arising out of incidents 
involving his two sons.  On August 6, 2003, Dailey pleaded no contest to 
three counts of Rape in the Third Degree.  At Dailey’s request, he was 
sentenced the next day.  Notwithstanding the recommendations of a seven-
year sentence by both the prosecutor and defense counsel, the Superior 
 
2
Court judge sentenced Dailey to 35 years, with credit for 289 days.  After 
serving fourteen years incarceration at level V, the balance of the 
incarceration sentence was to be suspended for 21 years at decreasing levels 
of supervision.   
 
(2) 
The factual basis for Dailey’s pleas are reflected in the record.  
According to the statements of his sons and former girlfriend, Deborah 
BeMiller, BeMiller had sexual intercourse with Dailey’s sons, Donald, Jr., 
age 15, and Jason, age 14, at Dailey’s request.  She had vaginal and oral 
intercourse with the two boys.  On some occasions, Dailey would watch.  On 
one occasion, BeMiller had oral sex with Dailey while she was having 
vaginal intercourse with Donald, Jr.  There were no allegations that Dailey 
ever touched his sons in any way. 
(3)  
On September 8, 2003, Dailey timely filed his appeal pro se.  
This Court directed conflict counsel to perfect the appeal.  Dailey has raised 
only one issue in this direct appeal.  Dailey argues that the Superior Court 
judge abused his discretion in sentencing Dailey outside of the guidelines 
and joint recommendations of the State and defense counsel, and that the 
judge exhibited a closed mind.  
 
3
(4) 
This Court reviews the sentencing of a criminal defendant 
pursuant to an abuse of discretion standard.1  “Appellate review of a 
sentence generally ends upon determination that the sentence is within the 
statutory limits prescribed by the legislature.”2  In this case, the minimum 
possible sentence Dailey could have received for three class B felony 
offenses was six years and the maximum sentence was sixty years 
incarceration at Level V.3  Accordingly, Dailey’s sentence fell within the 
statutory limits.  When a sentence is within the statutory limits, “this Court 
will not find an abuse of discretion unless it is clear that the sentencing judge 
relied on impermissible factors or exhibited a closed mind.”4 
(5) 
Dailey contends that the sentencing judge both relied on 
impermissible factors and exhibited a closed mind.  Dailey’s argument is 
based upon the following comments that were made by the judge at the time 
Dailey’s sentence was imposed: 
This is a nolo case.  I have had the opportunity to study the 
presentence report.  The evidence against you is extremely 
strong, sir.  Your two sons have given statements against you.  
A woman who at one point was close to you has given 
statements against you, given statements that also incriminates 
[sic] her and has resulted in her incarceration.  It is what I 
                                          
 
1 Walt v. State, 727 A.2d 836, 840 (Del. 1999). 
2 Mayes v. State, 604 A.2d 839, 842 (Del. 1992) (quoting Ward v. State, 567 A.2d 1296, 
1297 (Del. 1989)). 
3 See Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, §§ 771, 4205(b)(2). 
4 Weston v. State, 832 A.2d 742, 746 (Del. 2003). 
 
4
would characterize, in my experience, a strong case involving 
tragic and bizarre conduct; tragic and bizarre conduct which has 
resulted in the incarceration of your co-defendant.  And you 
never know why people do things, I don’t think, but your 
children, from all counts, those two boys, have been 
significantly and negatively impacted by your behavior.   
 
In 1993, you were involved in a conviction involving a 15-year-
old.  My recollection is that you did not take responsibility for 
that and said you were framed.  At your hands, there are now 
three juveniles, as they have gown older, but three juveniles 
have been abused by your conduct.  There are aggravating 
factors.  I pulled this thing out and went through it pretty 
thoroughly.  This is an offense against a child.  This is a prior 
violent criminal conduct of a similar nature in that it is violent 
conduct against a child.  You do not have to be the one that 
touched your boys.  You got your kicks from having something 
weird done with your boys and girlfriend.  These are B felonies 
with a range of two to 20 years each.  Two years must be a 
given.  The guidelines range from two to ten years.  These are 
pretty wide guidelines.   
 
I have taken into consideration and thought long and hard about 
the recommendations that have been made, because I consider 
those recommendations very weighty, coming from both the 
State and the defense in the negotiation process.  But in this 
case, I cannot follow the recommendation, Mr. Dailey, because 
my concern is that people who are involved in unusual, or I will 
say unusual sex with others, and those others are minors that 
are unable to consent, if you have done it once, you will 
probably do it again.  If you have done it twice, the likelihood 
and probability goes much, much higher. 
 
 
Part of my responsibility, since these are violent crimes, is to 
protect the community from sexual predators, and I think you 
are a sexual predator.  You go about it in a different way. 
 
(6) 
The record reflects that, rather than exhibiting a closed mind, 
the Superior Court judge carefully considered the record, the presentence 
 
5
report and the parties’ recommendations in determining the sentence to be 
imposed.  There is no basis in the record to support Dailey’s assertion that 
the sentence imposed by the trial judge was “based on preconceived bias 
without consideration of the nature of the offense or character of the 
defendant.”5   
(7) 
The record also does not support Dailey’s assertion that the 
judge considered an improper factor in sentencing Dailey.  Dailey argues 
that there was no evidence to support the sentencing judge’s characterization 
of Dailey as a “sexual predator.”  The Superior Court judge’s reference to 
Dailey as a “sexual predator” was based upon the nature of the crimes for 
which Dailey was being sentenced and Dailey’s criminal record.  Those 
circumstances were proper factors to consider.6   
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgments 
of the Superior Court be, and the same hereby is, AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
                                          
 
5 Ellerbe v. State, 2000 WL 949625, *1 (Del. May 11, 2000) (ORDER).  
6 Id.