Court Opinion

ID: 9905998
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-30 18:02:53.860435+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:03.345170
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

MARK COOLING,                          §
                                       §       No. 383, 2022
      Defendant Below,                 §
      Appellant,                       §       Court Below: Superior Court
                                       §       of the State of Delaware
                                       §
      v.                               §       Cr. ID. Nos. 2107016981(S)
                                       §                    2108009800 (S)
                                       §
STATE OF DELAWARE,                     §
                                       §
      Appellee.                        §

                          Submitted: September 27, 2023
                          Decided:   November 30, 2023

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA, and LEGROW, Justices.

                                      ORDER

      Upon consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record below, it appears to

the Court that:

      (1)    The appellant, Mark Cooling, appeals his sentence for stalking,

criminal contempt of a protection from abuse order (“PFA”), and possession of a

firearm by a person prohibited (“PFBPP”). The Superior Court sentenced Cooling

to 12 years at Level V incarceration, suspended after 3 years for decreasing levels of

supervision. Cooling raises four arguments on appeal. First, he argues that the

Superior Court abused its discretion by failing to consider mitigating factors.

                                           1
Second, he contends that the Superior Court did not properly balance the aggravating

and mitigating factors. Third, he asserts that the Superior Court incorrectly applied

two aggravating factors: repetitive criminal history and prior abuse of the victim.

Fourth, he argues that his sentence is the product of judicial vindictiveness or bias.

None of Cooling’s arguments supports reversal of his sentence and we therefore

affirm the Superior Court’s sentencing order.

                   FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1

       (2)     Cooling’s convictions arose from domestic disputes with his then-wife,

M.C.2 According to M.C., Cooling began acting out of character in February 2021.

He became fixated on her fidelity and repeatedly called her at work, searched her

cell phone, and posted accusations of her unfaithfulness on social media. When

Cooling’s behavior continued to escalate, M.C. decided to take their two minor

daughters and stay with her stepfather. When M.C. tried to leave their home,

Cooling stood in the hallway with a gun in his hand and did not allow her to pass.

       (3)     After M.C. and the couple’s children moved into her stepfather’s

residence, M.C. and her step-father found a GPS tracker on her car, a trail camera

pointed at her step-father’s house, and bent nails scattered at the end of the

1
  Because Cooling’s convictions are the result of a plea, the factual background is drawn from the
Presentence Investigative Report (“PSI”).
2
  See D.I. 61 (order granting State’s request to redact victim’s name from appendix).
                                                2
driveway.3 M.C. found documentation indicating the camera and tracker were

registered to Cooling.4

         (4)    Delaware State Police served Cooling with a PFA and a weapon

relinquishment order on June 9, 2021. Cooling told the executing officers that he

had three firearms inside his home. The officers then found two shotguns, a pistol,

and a large, locked safe. When the officers asked Cooling to open the safe, he denied

having access to it or knowledge of its contents, alleging instead that M.C. had the

key to the safe. M.C. similarly denied having access to the safe, and both parties

were advised not to contact the other until the matter was heard in court. Officers

advised Cooling that the PFA prohibited him from possessing firearms, and he

would be arrested if caught with one.

         (5)    In July 2021, notwithstanding the PFA, Cooling sent M.C. messages

stating that he knew exactly where her head was on her pillow. He also told M.C.

their tombstones had already been made, and the last nice words they said to each

other—“I do”—were written on them.

         (6)    On July 30, 2021, New Castle County detectives apprehended Cooling

with SWAT assistance. During a search of Cooling’s home, the officers discovered

empty rifle cases, hunting paraphernalia, hundreds of rounds of ammunition, and a

3
    App. to Opening Br. at A50 (PSI).
4
    Id.
                                          3
large gun safe. Cooling again denied having access to the safe and encouraged the

officers to “go ahead and destroy it.”5 When the officers opened the safe, they found

43 firearms inside.

       (7)    In April 2022, M.C. submitted to police several documents handwritten

by Cooling. His writings contained names, addresses, and vehicle information of

people M.C. knew.

       (8)    On October 8, 2021, a grand jury indicted Cooling on 42 counts of

PFBPP, one count of possession of ammunition by a person prohibited, one count of

criminal contempt of a PFA, and one count of harassment. Later, as part of plea

negotiations, the State added by Attorney General Information one count of stalking.

       (9)    On June 16, 2022, Cooling pleaded guilty to one count of PFBPP, one

count of criminal contempt of a PFA, and one count of stalking. The SENTAC

presumptive sentence for PFBPP is up to 12 months of probation.6 For criminal

contempt, the guidelines recommend a presumptive sentence of up to 12 months of

Level II probation.7 Stalking, a Class F violent felony in this case, requires a six-

month minimum mandatory term of imprisonment and has a presumptive sentence

of up to nine months of Level V incarceration.8

5
  Id. at A49.
6
  2021–22 SENTAC Benchbook at 50. The statutory maximum for PFBPP is eight years at Level
V. Id.
7
  Id. at 73. The statutory maximum for criminal contempt of a domestic violence protective order
is one year at Level V and up to a $2,300 fine. Id.
8
  Id. at 59. The statutory maximum for stalking is three years at Level V. Id.
                                               4
      (10) Cooling stated in his presentence interview he “would like to tell

everyone he is sorry,” but he “doesn’t know what he should feel remorseful for.”9

Cooling met with two different mental health counselors while incarcerated but

stated the counselors did not see a need to meet with him regularly.

      (11) In its sentencing memorandum and at sentencing, the State read M.C.’s

victim impact statement in which she described fearing for her and her children’s

lives because of Cooling’s conduct. At sentencing, the Superior Court agreed with

the five aggravating factors submitted by the State10: 1) lack of remorse; 2) undue

depreciation of the offense; 3) repetitive criminal conduct; 4) prior abuse of the

victim; and 5) need for correctional treatment.11 In spite of the aggravating factors

the State advocated, neither Cooling nor his counsel suggested any mitigating factors

for the court’s consideration. The Superior Court then sentenced Cooling as follows:

three years Level V, suspended after two years for stalking; eight years Level V

suspended for two years Level III for PFBPP; and one year Level V followed by one

year Level III for criminal contempt of a PFA. Before announcing its sentence, the

court noted its consideration of Cooling’s “personal and criminal history, the

9
  App. to Opening Br. at A53 (PSI).
10
   App. to Answering Br. at B24–29 (State’s Sentencing Memorandum).
11
   App. to Opening Br. at A129 (Sentencing Tr.).
                                            5
circumstances that the incident invented,” and the comments made by both attorneys

as well as Cooling himself.12 On October 14, 2022, Cooling filed a notice of appeal.

                                            ANALYSIS

       (12) This Court reviews a criminal sentence for abuse of discretion.13

Appellate review of sentences that do not exceed statutory limits is “extremely

limited.”14 A sentencing court abuses its discretion when the sentence “is based on

factual predicates which are false, impermissible, or lack minimal reliability, judicial

vindictiveness or bias, or a closed mind.”15 A sentencing court exhibits a closed

mind when the court bases its sentence on a preconceived bias without considering

the offense’s nature or the defendant’s character.16

       (13) Cooling argues that the court sentenced him with a closed mind because

the record does not support a sentence that exceeds the SENTAC guidelines.17

Cooling contends that his sentence was the product of judicial bias and a closed mind

because the court: 1) did not consider mitigating factors, 2) raised—sua sponte—

two additional aggravating factors, 3) misapplied an aggravating factor, and 4)

considered uncharged conduct and evinced vindictiveness toward Cooling by taking

12
   Id. at A128.
13
   Kurzman v. State, 903 A.2d 702, 714 (Del. 2006).
14
   Mayes v. State, 604 A.2d 839, 842 (Del. 1992).
15
   Weston v. State, 832 A.2d 742, 746 (Del. 2003).
16
   Id.
17
   Opening Br. at 11.
                                              6
into account conduct for which he did not plead guilty.18 For the reasons explained

below, we affirm Cooling’s sentence.

     A. The Superior Court did not abuse its discretion by not considering
        mitigating factors.

       (14) Cooling first argues that the Superior Court abused its discretion by

failing to consider “even a single” mitigating factor.19 He contends that his counsel

presented the following mitigating factors: his apology, his acceptance of

responsibility, his drug use, and his long-term employment. On the contrary,

although Cooling’s counsel presented Cooling’s side of the story, counsel made no

reference to any mitigating factor at any time during sentencing.20 Further, the court

specifically stated that it had taken into account all the evidence and comments

submitted by the parties.21 The court therefore did not abuse its discretion by not

expressly citing or finding any mitigating factors.

     B. The Superior Court did not abuse its discretion by not balancing
        aggravating and mitigating factors.

       (15) Cooling next contends that the Superior Court abused its discretion

because it did not balance the aggravating and mitigating factors. But, as discussed,

18
   Id. at 11–12.
19
   Id. at 12.
20
   See generally App. to Opening Br. at A121–27 (Sentencing Tr.).
21
   Id. at A128 (“the Court has considered the presentence report in this case, your personal and
criminal history, the circumstances that the incident invented, the comments of both attorneys
today, letters on your behalf, the victim’s impact statement, the State’s presentence memorandum
as well as your comments, your interview comments and your comments that you made here
today.”).
                                               7
Cooling did not provide the court with any mitigating factors to weigh against the

aggravating factors.22 Cooling also posits that the court abused its discretion when

it exceeded the SENTAC presumptive sentence for each count without reviewing

aggravating factors, but the court expressly found five aggravating factors before

imposing the sentence. Those aggravating factors justified the court’s decision to

exceed the SENTAC guidelines.

     C. The Superior Court’s misapplication of one aggravating factor was
        harmless error.

       (16) Cooling next argues that the court abused its discretion by finding two

aggravating factors that do not apply to his case. Cooling contends that the court

should not have considered repetitive criminal conduct and prior abuse of the victim

as aggravating factors. As to the first factor, Cooling argues it was a misapplication,

and, as to the second factor, he contends that the court abused its discretion in citing

it because “the charged offenses were the first charges ever brought against

[Cooling] regarding this victim.”23

22
   Cooling further argues that the court exhibited bias against him when it raised two aggravating
factors sua sponte. This argument, however, is not supported by the record because the State’s
sentencing memorandum asked the court to consider all five of the aggravating factors the court
cited. Moreover, nothing prevents the court from considering additional aggravating factors not
previously suggested by counsel. See Mayes, 604 A.2d at 842. (“a sentencing court has broad
discretion in determining what information to rely on from a presentencing report and related
sources.”).
23
   Opening Br. at 12–13.
                                                8
       (17) Although Cooling does not expand upon his contention that the

repetitive-criminal-conduct factor was misapplied, we assume that his argument is

grounded in the SENTAC Benchbook’s definition of the factor. The Benchbook

defines “repetitive criminal conduct” as a “conviction or adjudication for the same

or similar offense on two or more previous occasions.”24 That definition is subject

to the following policies: “only those offenses adjudicated at age 14 or older shall

be counted in prior history” and “a conviction-free period of ten (10) years after final

release from incarceration, or from date of sentence if only probation at Levels I

through IV was ordered, shall be sufficient to ‘wash’ the criminal history prior to

that date.”25 Class A and B felonies are excluded from the latter policy.26

       (18) As the State notes, Cooling’s criminal history is extensive.27 Contrary

to the State’s argument, however, none of Cooling’s previous convictions are for

crimes that are the “same or similar” to those to which he pleaded guilty in this

case.28 Under the SENTAC guidelines, the repetitive-criminal-conduct factor only

would apply to Cooling if (i) he previously had been convicted of crimes similar to

those for which he was being sentenced, and (ii) those convictions were either Class

A or B felonies or had not been “washed” by a ten-year conviction-free period. None

24
   2021–22 SENTAC Benchbook at 25.
25
   Id. at 24.
26
   Id.
27
   See App. to Opening Br. at A58–108 (PSI).
28
   Answering Br. at 10.
                                               9
of Cooling’s previous convictions fit those criteria.29 The State also argued in its

sentencing memorandum that the 41 firearms recovered in Cooling’s home for

which he did not plead guilty should support application of the repetitive-criminal-

conduct aggravating factor, but Cooling was not convicted of these crimes, and the

factor therefore does not apply.30

       (19) Cooling’s position regarding the repetitive-criminal-conduct factor has

some merit. Ultimately, however, the court’s misapplication of the factor amounted

to harmless error because the court cited other aggravating factors that justify the

sentence imposed.31

       (20) As to the prior-abuse-of-the-victim factor, the court did not abuse its

discretion in applying this factor because, unlike repetitive criminal conduct, prior

29
   Cooling’s previous convictions include: various misdemeanor traffic offenses. App. to Opening
Br. at A91–105; reckless endangering second degree from 2010 (Class A misdemeanor). Id. at
A95; 11 Del. C. § 603; offensive touching from 1995 (unclassified misdemeanor or Class A
misdemeanor). App. to Opening Br. at A99–100; 11 Del. C. § 601; Assault third degree from 1995
(Class A misdemeanor). App. to Opening Br. at A100; 11 Del. C. § 611; disorderly conduct from
1995 (unclassified misdemeanor). App. to Opening Br. at A100; 11 Del. C. § 1301(1)(b); resisting
arrest from 1994 (Class A misdemeanor). App. to Opening Br. at A102; 11 Del. C. § 1257(b); and
carrying a concealed dangerous instrument from 1993 (Class A misdemeanor). App. to Opening
Br. at A102; 11 Del. C. § 1443. Stalking is a Class F felony where, as here, the defendant violates
any order prohibiting contact with the victim. 11 Del. C. § 1312(c)(2). Possession of a Firearm by
a person prohibited is a Class D felony. 11 Del. C. § 1448(c). Criminal Contempt of a PFA is a
class A misdemeanor. 11 Del. C. § 1271A(b). App. to Opening Br. at A91–92 (Cooling has three
driving offenses from 2017, 2018, and 2021: two convictions for inattentive driving and one for
speeding).
30
   App. to Opening Br. at A117 (Sentencing Tr.); App. to Answering Br. at B24 (State’s Sentencing
Memorandum).
31
   See supra note 11.
                                               10
abuse of the victim does not require previous convictions or charges.32 Here, the

victim impact statement, presentence report, and even Cooling’s own counsel’s

remarks provided the court with sufficient factual predicates to justify applying this

factor in Cooling’s sentence. Because Cooling does not argue—and there is nothing

in the record to support the contention—that these factual predicates lack a minimum

indicia of reliability, the court was free to rely on them when crafting its sentence.

     D. The Superior Court did not demonstrate vindictiveness or bias.

       (21) Finally, Cooling argues that the court exhibited vindictiveness and bias

against him by considering: 1) criminal conduct to which he did not plead guilty,

and 2) other “outrageous” personal conduct.33 Cooling further contends that the

court displayed a vindictive demeanor when it failed to explain its departure from

the SENTAC presumptive sentence.               Because the court stated its reasons for

departing from the presumptive sentence, it did not abuse its discretion in this

regard.34

       (22) Cooling relies on Tramill v. State35 to argue that the court was required

to state, in detail, the reasons why the criminal charges justified a departure from the

SENTAC presumptive sentence. Cooling also argues that Tramill supports the

32
   2021–22 SENTAC Benchbook at 109 (Prior abuse of the victim is defined as “[o]n prior
occasions, the defendant has harassed, threatened, or physically abused the victim of the current
offense.”).
33
   Opening Br. at 17.
34
   App. to Opening Br. at A129. (Sentencing Tr.).
35
   Tramill v. State, 425 A.2d 142 (Del. 1980).
                                               11
proposition that the court demonstrated bias and vindictiveness by relying on

conduct not related to his convictions when crafting his sentence. Not so. The

Tramill Court remanded a sentence so the judge could state, on the record, the

reasons it increased the defendant’s sentence after the defendant was convicted

following an appeal and retrial.36 Under those circumstances, the trial judge was

required to make certain specific findings. This case is procedurally distinct and

there is no indication that the court sentenced Cooling with any vindictiveness.

      (23) This Court recently held that imposition of the maximum sentence,

standing alone, does not demonstrate bias or vindictiveness.37            Additionally,

sentencing courts are free to consider uncharged conduct and have broad discretion

as to what conduct they consider when crafting a sentence.38 The court therefore

was free to consider the numerous PFBPP counts that the State dismissed in

exchange for Cooling’s plea.39 The court also could consider Cooling’s statement

to the presentence investigator that he “doesn’t know what he should be remorseful

for.”40 Further, as we discussed above, the court identified several aggravating

factors that justified exceeding the SENTAC presumptive sentence.41 The court also

36
   Id. at 143.
37
   White v State, 813 A.2d 1142, 2002 WL 31873703 at *2 (Del. Dec. 20, 2022) (TABLE).
38
   Hickman v. State, 100 A.3d 1021, 2014 WL 4463142 at *3 (Del. Sept. 10, 2014) (TABLE);
Mayes, 604 A.2d at 842.
39
   App. to Opening Br. at A22–44 (Indictment).
40
   Id. at A53 (PSI).
41
   Id. at A128–29 (Sentencing Tr.).
                                          12
cited its concern regarding Cooling’s ex-wife’s safety,42 but ultimately sentenced

Cooling to less Level V time than the State recommended.43 Finally, the court stated

on the record that it had considered all comments and information provided to it.44

Cooling therefore has failed to demonstrate that his sentence was the product of

vindictiveness, bias, or a closed mind.

       NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior

Court is AFFIRMED.

                                              BY THE COURT:

                                              /s/ Abigail M. LeGrow
                                              Justice

42
   Id. at A120 (Sentencing Tr.); Id. at A129.
43
   Opening Br. Ex. F at 1–2; App. to Answering Br. at B22 (State’s Sentencing Memorandum)
(State recommended a total of four unsuspended years at Level V, court imposed three
unsuspended years at Level V); see also App. to Opening Br. at A118 (Sentencing Tr.).
44
   App. to Opening Br. at A128 (Sentencing Tr.) (“the court has considered the presentence report
in this case, your personal and criminal history, the circumstances that the incident invented, the
comments of both attorneys today, letters on your behalf, the victim’s impact statement, the State’s
presentence memorandum as well as your comments, your interview comments and your
comments that you made here today.”).
                                                13