Title: Ribolla v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 140, 2001
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: August 2, 2001

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
JEFFREY A. RIBOLLA,
'
'  No. 140, 2001
Petitioner Below-
'
Appellant,
'
'
v.
'  Court BelowCSuperior Court
'  of the State of Delaware,
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
'  in and for Kent County
'  C.A. No. 01M-03-001
Respondent Below-
'  ID No. 9604011078
Appellee.
'
Submitted: July 5, 2001
  Decided:
August 2, 2001
Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and STEELE, Justices.
O R D E R
This 2nd day of August 2001, upon consideration of the appellant=s
opening brief and the appellee=s motion to affirm, it appears to the Court that:
(1)
The appellant, Jeffrey Ribolla, filed this appeal from the Superior
Court=s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The gist of Ribolla=s
complaint is that the Superior Court illegally sentenced him to concurrent terms
of incarceration, and the Department of Correction lacks authority to interpret
his illegal sentences as being served consecutively.  The State of Delaware has
-2-
moved to affirm the judgment of the Superior Court on the ground that it is
manifest on the face of Ribolla's opening brief that the appeal is without merit.1
(2)
The record reflects that Ribolla pled guilty in January 1997 to one
count of first degree conspiracy and one count of first degree criminal
solicitation. The plea agreement, which was entered into pursuant to Superior
Court Criminal Rule 11(e)(1)(C), reflects that the State and Ribolla agreed to
a total sentence on both charges of ten years at Level V incarceration, to be
suspended after four years for one year at Level III probation, followed by two
years at Level II probation, followed by two years at Level I probation. 
Following the guilty plea colloquy, the Superior Court accepted the parties=
agreement and sentenced Ribolla on each charge to five years at Level V
incarceration, to be suspended after serving two years for one year at Level III
probation, followed by two years Level II probation, followed by two years at
Level I probation.
                                                            
1Supr. Ct. R. 25(a).
-3-
(3)
Ribolla filed unsuccessful petitions for correction of sentence and
habeas relief. Ribolla contended that the Superior Court=s sentencing order
specified that his sentences were to be served concurrently, and concurrent
sentence are illegal under 11 Del. C. ' 3901(d).2 Thus, Ribolla concedes that
he agreed to serve four years at Level V pursuant to the clear terms of his guilty
plea agreement. He also concedes that the Superior Court could not legally
impose the two two-year prison terms to run concurrently. Notwithstanding
these concessions, however, Ribolla appears to argue that he should only be
required to spend two years in prison and that the Department of Correction is
improperly interpreting his two two-year prison terms to run consecutively. We
find no merit to this claim.
(4)
It is clear from the record that the parties agreed, and the Superior
Court intended, to sentence Ribolla to serve four years in prison followed by
five years of decreasing levels of supervision. Although inartfully worded, the
Superior Court=s sentencing order imposed two consecutive two-year prison
terms, followed by two concurrent five-year probationary terms. This is exactly
                                                            
211 Del. C. ' 3901(d) provides, ANo sentence of confinement of any criminal
defendant by any court of this State shall be made to run concurrently with any other
sentence of confinement imposed on such criminal defendant.@
-4-
the sentence that Ribolla bargained for. He has no basis on this undisputed
record to argue otherwise.
(5)
It is manifest on the face of Ribolla's opening brief that his appeal
is without merit because the issues presented in this appeal are clearly
controlled by settled Delaware law and, to the extent that judicial discretion is
implicated, clearly there was no abuse of discretion.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Supreme Court
Rule 25(a), the State=s motion to affirm is GRANTED  The judgment of the
Superior Court is hereby AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Carolyn Berger
Justice