Durham v. State
1507019715 & 1508002923
| Del. Super. Ct. | Nov 3, 2016Background
- Durham pled guilty to two shoplifting offenses (July 16 and August 4, 2015) and was sentenced to concurrent suspended terms with Level II probation and a condition requiring substance abuse evaluation/treatment.
- During probation Durham tested positive for cocaine and opiates, failed to report as directed, and was later charged with additional shoplifting (Jan. 8) and convicted in Maryland for theft and assault after leaving Delaware without permission.
- Probation officer filed violation reports (Jan. 13 and Mar. 4, 2016) citing the positive drug test, failure to report, the January shoplifting, and the Maryland conviction; officer recommended heightened supervision.
- At an uncontested April 8, 2016 VOP hearing the Trial Court found Durham violated probation, revoked the suspended sentences, and imposed 6 months Level V for the July offense and 3 months Level V for the August offense (9 months total, no probation to follow).
- Durham, pro se, appealed arguing the sentence was an abuse of discretion because it deviated from non-binding SENTAC guidelines, rested on a misreading of his criminal history, lacked articulated aggravating factors, and failed to include substance-abuse treatment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Durham) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether deviation from SENTAC guidelines alone is reversible | SENTAC guidelines are advisory; statutory sentence within limits is lawful | Sentence improperly departed from SENTAC without justification | Court: SENTAC nonbinding; deviation alone not a basis for reversal |
| Whether sentence was based on inaccurate or unreliable facts (criminal history/number of prior violations) | Trial Court relied on reliable records showing extensive convictions and repeated probation violations | Court miscounted violations and relied on mistaken factual predicates | Court: Record supports findings; no demonstrably false or unreliable predicates |
| Whether failure to articulate aggravating factors on record requires reversal | Articulation not required; court may consider history and conduct | Failure to state aggravators deprives Durham of meaningful review | Court: No reversible error; articulation of SENTAC departure not mandatory |
| Whether omission of mandated substance-abuse treatment in sentence was abuse of discretion | Treatment had been offered during probation; requiring treatment at Level V is discretionary | Court should have included treatment rather than immediate incarceration | Court: Imposition of incarceration rather than treatment was within trial court discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Mayes v. State, 604 A.2d 839 (Del. 1992) (SENTAC guidelines are advisory and deviation does not by itself create a right to appeal)
- Siple v. State, 701 A.2d 79 (Del. 1997) (sentencing judge may consider personal history beyond the offense)
- Kurzmann v. State, 903 A.2d 702 (Del. 2006) (sentencing review is limited and based on abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Gaines v. State, 571 A.2d 765 (Del. 1989) (no right to appeal solely because sentence departs from SENTAC)
- Ward v. State, 567 A.2d 1296 (Del. 1989) (appellate review generally ends if sentence is within statutory limits)
- Cruz v. State, 990 A.2d 409 (Del. 2010) (failure to articulate reasons for departing from SENTAC does not automatically render sentence arbitrary)
- Burns v. United States, 287 U.S. 216 (U.S. 1932) (probation is a privilege to aid rehabilitation)