Title: Siena v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 67, 2003
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: April 8, 2003

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
LAVAR S. SIENA, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 67, 2003 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID. No. 9602012050 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: March 3, 2003 
 
 
 
 
  Decided:   April 8, 2003 
 
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and STEELE, Justices 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 8th day of April 2003, upon consideration of the appellant’s opening 
brief and the appellee’s motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 25(a), it 
appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Lavar S. Siena, filed an appeal from the 
Superior Court’s January 24, 2003 order denying his motion for modification of 
sentence.  The plaintiff-appellee, the State of Delaware, has moved to affirm the 
judgment of the Superior Court on the ground that it is manifest on the face of 
Woods’ opening brief that the appeal is without merit.  We agree and AFFIRM. 
 
(2) 
In September 1996, Siena pleaded guilty to three counts of Robbery in 
the First Degree, one count of Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a 
 
2
Felony and one count of Assault in the First Degree.  He was sentenced to a total 
of 19 years incarceration at Level V, to be suspended after 13 years for decreasing 
levels of probation.  The sentencing order provided that Siena’s 7-year Level V 
sentence for assault was to be suspended after 1 year for an additional year at 
“Supervision Level 4 - Halfway House or Inpatient Substance Abuse Treatment.”  
The sentencing order also contained the condition that Siena would be assigned to 
the Residential and Outpatient Drug/Alcohol Programs until such programs were 
completed.  
 
(3) 
In this appeal, Siena claims that, because he has no history of alcohol 
or drug abuse, the Superior Court abused its discretion by requiring him to 
participate in residential and outpatient substance abuse treatment.  
 
(4) 
Siena’s claim is without merit.  In order to demonstrate an abuse of 
discretion on the part of the sentencing judge, Siena must show that the judge 
based the sentence on false factual predicates or was biased or vindictive.1  The 
record reveals no bias or vindictiveness on the part of the Superior Court and, 
moreover, reflects that Siena was charged previously with drug offenses.    
 
(5) 
It is manifest on the face of Siena’s opening brief that this appeal is 
without merit because the issues presented on appeal are controlled by settled 
                                                          
 
1Bowersox v. State, __A.2d __, 2003 WL 1344849 (Del. 2003).  
 
3
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 of Delaware’s motion to affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment 
of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice