Title: Blue v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 213, 2013
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: July 15, 2013

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
STANLEY BLUE, 
 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 213, 2013 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID Nos. 1205015960 
§  1206011393 and 1210002931 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: June 25, 2013 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: July 15, 2013 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 15th day of July 2013, upon consideration of appellant’s opening brief 
and the State’s motion to affirm, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Stanley Blue, filed this appeal from a Superior Court 
judgment denying his motion for modification of sentence.  The State has filed a 
motion to affirm the judgment below on the ground that it is manifest on the face 
of Blue’s opening brief that his appeal is without merit.  We agree and affirm. 
(2) 
The record reflects that, in November 2013, Blue pled guilty to 
Robbery in the Second Degree, Possession of a Deadly Weapon During the 
Commission of a Felony, Assault in the Second Degree, and Failure to Verify 
Address (Registered Sex Offender).  Blue’s guilty plea resolved three different sets 
 
2
of charges.  In exchange for his plea, the State agreed to dismiss additional 
criminal charges and to recommend a sentence of eight years at Level V 
incarceration on the remaining charges.  Blue agreed that he qualified to be 
sentenced as a habitual offender.  The Superior Court ordered a presentence 
investigation.  On February 8, 2013, the Superior Court granted the State’s motion 
to declare Blue a habitual offender and sentenced Blue on his charges to a total 
period of twelve years at Level V incarceration to be followed by decreasing levels 
of supervision.  Blue did not file a direct appeal from his sentence. 
(3) 
Instead, on March 11, 2013, Blue filed a motion to amend his 
sentence on the grounds that he was entitled to a sentence of no more than eight 
years pursuant to his plea agreement.  On March 22, 2013, the Superior Court 
denied Blue’s motion on the ground that his sentence was appropriate for the 
reasons stated at his sentencing and that Blue had provided no additional 
information to warrant a sentence modification. 
(4) 
Blue now appeals the Superior Court’s denial of his motion for 
sentence modification.  In his opening brief on appeal, Blue asks this Court to 
honor his “original plea agreement” because the sentencing judge “breached [the] 
contract.” 
(5) 
We find no merit to this appeal.  In exchange for Blue’s guilty plea, 
the prosecuting attorney agreed to recommend a sentence of eight years at Level V 
 
3
incarceration.  Blue does not argue that the prosecutor failed to make the agreed-to 
sentence recommendation.  Accordingly, there is no support for Blue’s argument 
that “the State” breached the plea agreement.  In fact, Blue suggests that the 
sentencing judge should have been bound by the prosecutor’s sentence 
recommendation.  Blue’s argument, however, is contrary to law1 and is contrary to 
his signed acknowledgment on the guilty plea form that no one had promised him 
what his sentence would be.  Blue’s plea agreement, in fact, reflects his 
understanding that the Superior Court had discretion to impose up to a sentence of 
life imprisonment plus an additional term of years.  After careful consideration of 
the parties’ respective positions on appeal, we find no abuse of the Superior 
Court’s discretion in denying Blue’s motion for modification of sentence.  
 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                                 
1 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 11(e)(B) (2013) (providing that the attorney general, as part of a plea agreement, may 
agree to make a sentence recommendation “with the understanding that such recommendation or request shall not be 
binding upon the court”).