Biddle v. State, 239, 2016

Background

In 2011, Jamil Biddle pled guilty to first-degree robbery and received a ten-year sentence suspended after three years, with two years of probation and a special zero-tolerance VOP condition.
In 2014 Biddle was arrested and later indicted on charges including possession of a handgun and ammunition; DNA testing linked Biddle to a gun.
The State missed discovery deadlines for DNA testing; the Superior Court limited use of the DNA report so that only the defense could use it at trial. The defense chose not to introduce the inculpatory report.
A February 2016 jury acquitted Biddle of the gun and ammunition charges but convicted him on other counts; he was sentenced to three months incarceration and one year probation on those convictions.
At an April 26, 2016 VOP hearing, the Superior Court found Biddle guilty of violating probation and sentenced him to three years' unsuspended incarceration followed by work release and probation, citing his conduct, the arrest circumstances, and the DNA link to the gun.
Biddle appealed, arguing the VOP sentence was illegal because it relied on a DNA report ruled unusable by the State at trial, and raised Double Jeopardy, Eighth Amendment, SENTAC guideline, and judicial-bias claims. Counsel filed a Rule 26(c) no-merit brief; the Supreme Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether sentencing court may consider DNA report the State was precluded from using at trial	State: Court may consider reliable information, including unproven crimes, when sentencing	Biddle: Reliance on the DNA report was improper because it was ruled precluded at trial and thus unreliable	Court: Permissible; report was not ruled inaccurate and reliable information may be considered at sentencing
Double Jeopardy bar to VOP sentence based on conduct underlying acquitted charges	State: Double Jeopardy does not bar additional punishment for probation violation even if same conduct led to separate acquitted charges	Biddle: VOP sentence punishes same conduct already subject to acquittal, invoking Double Jeopardy	Court: No Double Jeopardy violation; clause protects multiple prosecutions/punishments for same offense but does not bar VOP here
Eighth Amendment / Excessive Sentence challenge	State: Sentence within statutory limits and not grossly disproportionate	Biddle: Three-year unsuspended term is cruel/unusual and excessive given acquittal on firearm charges	Court: Sentence lawful and not grossly disproportionate; Superior Court could have imposed harsher term within statutory authority
SENTAC guidelines and claim of judge imposing sentence with closed mind	State: SENTAC guidelines are advisory; judge considered relevant factors and did not display bias	Biddle: Sentence exceeded guideline limits and judge acted with preconceived bias	Court: SENTAC non-binding; record shows judge considered offense and defendant's character; no closed-mind evidence

Key Cases Cited

Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (establishes counsel-withdrawal/no-merit procedures for appeals)
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (procedures when counsel finds appeal frivolous)
McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 U.S. 429 (counsel’s duties when withdrawing on appeal)
Wallace v. State, 956 A.2d 630 (Del. 2008) (Eighth Amendment review for disproportionality)
White v. State, 576 A.2d 1322 (Del. 1990) (Double Jeopardy principles protecting against multiple punishments)
DiFrancesco v. United States, 449 U.S. 117 (discussion of Double Jeopardy and related sentencing principles)
Siple v. State, 701 A.2d 79 (Del. 1997) (SENTAC guidelines are non-binding)
Weston v. State, 832 A.2d 742 (Del. 2003) (standard for determining whether a judge sentenced with a closed mind)
Mayes v. State, 604 A.2d 839 (Del. 1992) (sentencing may consider information about unproven crimes)
Cruz v. State, 990 A.2d 409 (Del. 2010) (affirming VOP where probationer was acquitted of related criminal charges)