Court Opinion

ID: 9396128
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-19 16:09:29.725473+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:14.202489
License: Public Domain

SUPERIOR COURT
                                       OF THE
                               STATE OF DELAWARE

CRAIG A. KARSNITZ                                                    1 The Circle, Suite 2
RESIDENT JUDGE                                                  GEORGETOWN, DE 19947

                                    May 18. 2023

Daniel A. Strumpf, Esquire                      David Hume, IV, Esquire
Assistant Public Defender                       Deputy Attorney General
Office of Defense Services                      Chief Prosecutor, Sussex County
Public Defender’s Office                        Department of Justice
14 The Circle, 2nd Floor                        13 The Circle
Georgetown, DE 19947                            Georgetown, DE 19947

             Re:   State of Delaware v. Stacey L. Like
                   Def. ID# 2101000019
                   Rule 35(b) Motion for Reduction of Sentence

Gentlemen:

      On November 2, 2022, Stacey L. Like (“Defendant”), pursuant to a Pre-

Sentence Plea Agreement and a Truth-in-Sentencing Guilty Plea Form, pled guilty

to two Class B Violent Felony charges: First Degree Assault and Possession of a

Firearm During the Commission of a Felony (“PFDCF”). I ordered a Pre-Sentence

Investigation before sentencing.

      On January 13, 2023, I sentenced Defendant as follows: on the charge of First

Degree Assault, 25 years at Level V (with credit for 743 days served), suspended

after 3 years at Level V for 2 tears at Level III; on the charge of PFDCF, 25 years at
Level V, suspended after 4 years at Level V for 2 years at Level III. The sentences

run consecutively, for a total of 7 years of Level V time. I also imposed various other

conditions, including the payment of court costs and monetary assessments,

restitution, no contact with the victim, providing a DNA sample, mental health and

substance abuse treatment, forfeiture of seized items, and completion of a domestic

violence intervention program.

      On April 5, 2023, Defendant timely filed1 a Motion for Reduction of Sentence

(the “Motion”) pursuant to Delaware Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b). The State

filed its Response on May 2, 2023. This is my ruling on the Motion.

      SENTAC Guidelines

      The Delaware Sentencing Accountability Commission ("SENTAC") was

created for the purpose of establishing a system in Delaware "that emphasizes

accountability of the offender to the criminal justice system and accountability of

the criminal justice system to the public." 2 To fulfill that purpose, SENTAC

establishes sentencing guidelines located within the Benchbook.3 The presumptive

1
  Within 90 days after imposition of sentence under Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b).
2
  Delaware Sentencing Accountability Commission Benchbook, at 21 (2020) ("the
Benchbook").      The Benchbook can be located at https://cjc.delaware.gov/wp-
content/uploads/sites/6l/2020/02/Benchbook-2020F. pdf.
3
  The Benchbook at 21.

                                          2
sentences established by SENTAC “are based on the classification of the offense,

and whether it is violent or non-violent in nature."4

         Facing the potential of a steep minimum mandatory sentence if she were

convicted of attempted murder at trial, Defendant pressed the State for a plea to a

minimum of 3 years, but ultimately accepted a plea to a 5-year minimum mandatory

sentence, with the full understanding that the guidelines established by SENTAC are

presumptive only, and not binding on me.5

         First Degree Assault has a sentencing range of 2 to 25 years with a

presumptive sentence of 2 to 5 years. PFDCF has a sentencing range of 3 to 25 years

with a presumptive sentence of 3 to 5 years. Thus, Defendant faced a presumptive

sentence of 5 to 10 years. I imposed a sentence of 7 years, within the presumptive

range.

         The Benchbook also provides:

         The standard sentence range is presumed to be appropriate for the
         typical criminal case. The court may impose a sentence outside the
         standard sentence range for the offense if it finds that there are
         substantial and compelling reasons justifying an exceptional sentence.6

However, I did not issue an exceptional sentence. Therefore, it is deemed to be

4
    Id.
5
    Walters v. State, 2013 WL 4540040 at *1 (Del. Supr. Aug. 23, 2013).
6
    The Benchbook at 107.

                                              3
appropriate.

      The Benchbook also enumerates specific aggravating and mitigating factors

that I should consider when imposing a sentence.7 While the "standard sentence

range is presumed to be appropriate for the typical criminal case," the existence of

such factors can justify upward or downward departures from those guidelines. 8

Each of the enumerated aggravating and mitigating factors includes definitions

promulgated by SENTAC.9

      Defendant asserts that there is a mismatch between the mitigating and

aggravating factors under SENTAC. She correctly states that I found mitigators such

as: a lack of criminal history, undue duress or compulsion, need for treatment

exceeds need for punishment, remorse, and extreme emotional distress triggered by

a “toxic stew” of psychopharmacological, relationship, and mental health issues. But

she then incorrectly states that I found no applicable aggravators. This is simply not

true. I gave considerable weight to the grievous effect on the victim and his family,

including the fear and pain resulting from his original wound and multiple

subsequent surgeries. He faces a lifetime of emotional trauma. I was certainly within

7
  The Benchbook at 110-14.
8
  The Benchbook at 110.
9
  The Benchbook at 112-14.

                                          4
my rights to weigh these horrific aggravating factors against the extenuating factors

in determining an appropriate sentence.

       There is no constitutional or statutory right under Delaware law to appeal a

criminal punishment on the sole basis that it deviates from the SENTAC

sentencing guidelines."10 "[T]he trial court must explain its reasons for doing so,

but it is authorized to exceed the SENTAC guidelines without making any factual

findings beyond those reflected in the jury's verdict," 11 or, as in this case, the

charges to which the Defendant pled guilty. While it is within my discretion to

reduce a criminal sentence, justice is not served by a redundant reassessment of

the facts known and available to me at the time of sentencing.12 While Defendant

is displeased with the sentence imposed, no new or different facts have been

offered that were not known to the parties at the time of sentencing.

       Specific Cases

       I have looked at the three cases cited by Defendant. However, every criminal

case is different, and the particular factors underlying a sentencing decision in those

cases do not inform the exercise of my discretion in the sentencing in this case.

10
  Siple v. Slate, 701 A.2d 79, 83 (Del.1997).
11
  Id.
12
  See In re Briddelle, 2004 WL 344006 (Del. Super. Feb. 17, 2004) (noting that "[t]here
must be some finality to cases.").

                                             5
       Standard of Review

       Most importantly, Defendant does not assert that I abused my discretion in

sentencing her. Yet that is the standard that the Delaware Supreme Court uses in

reviewing a denial of a Rule 35(b) Motion.13

       The Delaware Supreme Court has stated: “We review a sentence

determination on appeal only to determine whether it is within the applicable

statutory limits and whether it is based upon factual predicates which are false or

impermissible, or which lack minimal reliability, judicial vindictiveness or bias,

or a closed mind."14 And further, "In Delaware, the trial court has broad discretion

in determining which information to rely on in imposing a sentence, including

information pertaining to the defendant's personal history and behavior, the

presentencing report, and other sources." 15 "Thus, in reviewing a sentence

within statutory limits, this Court will not find error of law or abuse of discretion

unless it is clear from the record below that a sentence has been imposed on the

basis of demonstrably false information or information lacking a minimal

indicium of reliability.”16 Under these standards, my sentence was not based on

13
   Mumford v. State, 2023 WL 1793844, at *2 (Del. Feb. 7, 2023).
14
   Kurzmann v. State 903 A.2d 702, 714 (Del. 2 0 0 6 ).
15
   Mayes v. State, 604 A .2d 839, 842 (Del. 1992).
16
   Id., quoting Ward v. State, 567 A.2d 1296, 1297 (Del. 1989).

                                              6
false, impermissible, or unreliable facts.

      Purpose of Incarceration

      Finally, Defendant asks me to reconsider the purpose of sentencing in a case

like this. Given the mitigating factors mentioned above, do factors such as

retribution, punishment or deterrence serve a purpose? Yes, incarceration delays

Defendant’s return to the community and her family. But is also serves as justice for

the crimes to which she pled guilty and the victim who continues to suffer. As stated

above, no new or different facts have been offered that were not known at the

time of sentencing.

      This was a difficult case. Defendant lived a law-abiding life until she

committed these crimes. She was, and is, devoted to her family. I have no doubt

that the medication prescribed by a medical professional after one virtual visit

played a role in what happened. But when one points a gun at another and pulls

the trigger, consequences flow, both to the victim and the perpetrator.

      I spent a substantial amount of time reviewing the case and evaluating an

appropriate sentence. SENTAC is a guide only. I remain satisfied that the

sentence I imposed upon Defendant is appropriate.

                                             7
     For the reasons stated above, I DENY Defendant’s Motion for Reduction of

Sentence.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

                             /s/ Craig A. Karsnitz

cc: Prothonotary

                                      8