Opinion ID: 1483627
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Sentence Imposed Properly

Text: The judge increased Cruz's sentence from Level III supervision to eighteen months of incarceration at Level V. Appellate review of a sentence is limited to whether the sentence is within the statutory limits prescribed by the General Assembly and whether it is based on factual predicates which are false, impermissible, or lack minimal reliability, judicial vindictiveness or bias, or a closed mind. [30] Cruz argues that the judge sentenced him with a closed mind. A judge sentences with a closed mind when the sentence is based on a preconceived bias without consideration of the nature of the offense or the character of the defendant. [31] In support of his closed mind argument, Cruz cites the fact that the judge's sentence exceeded the Sentencing Accountability Commission (SENTAC) guidelines of a one step increase in probation level. [32] Cruz also asserts that the judge did not articulate his reasons for departing from the SENTAC-suggested sentence of Level IV probation. The record does not support Cruz's assertions. The sentencing judge explained why he sentenced Cruz to Level V incarceration. Before imposing sentence, the judge stated: Mr. Cruz, you learned nothing at all from your previous conviction. You got out of jail and you stayed clean for a couple of months, and you went right back into business. There was 1200 [sic] bucks in your pocket and you still haven't made substantial payments on your fines. The judge reiterated his basis for imposing a more severe sentence than suggested in the SENTAC guidelines when he denied Cruz's motion for reduction of sentence: You reoffended within months of being released from prison on a similar offense. As Cruz himself recognized, lack of amenability to lesser restrictive sanctions through violation of a prior period of probation is an aggravating factor that may be cited to justify a more severe sentence. [33] The record reflects that the sentence imposed was based on the nature of the violations and Cruz's history of drug dealing. [34] Furthermore, given Cruz's history of violating probation, it was well within the Superior Court's discretion to revoke his probation and impose a prison sentence, notwithstanding the probation officer's recommendation to the contrary. [35] Cruz has failed to establish that his sentence was imposed with a closed mind. Therefore, he is not entitled to relief.