State v. Smith
2009007545
| Del. Super. Ct. | Apr 18, 2022Background
- Defendant Unique Smith pled guilty (Oct. 6, 2021) to Manslaughter and Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony; parties agreed to a presentence investigation and open sentencing.
- Counsel submitted a forensic evaluation (Bell Report) to the presentence investigator; the report was attached to the PSI and considered by the court.
- At sentencing (Nov. 19, 2021) the State capped its recommendation at 50 years Level 5 (suspended after 25); defense asked for 5 years. The court imposed 50 years at Level 5, suspended after a cumulative 22 years, and identified six aggravating factors, including Vulnerability of Victim, Repetitive Criminal Conduct, and Excessive Cruelty.
- Smith filed a timely Rule 35(b) motion (Feb. 17, 2022) seeking reduction to 8–12 years; the State opposed the motion.
- Smith argued the court exceeded SENTAC presumptive guidelines, misapplied several aggravators, sentenced with a closed mind (did not adequately consider Bell Report mitigating factors), and relied on false or unreliable facts (citing surveillance video).
- The court denied the Rule 35(b) motion, finding the sentence lawful, the aggravators supported, mitigating evidence considered, and relied-upon facts sufficiently reliable.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Smith's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether judge lawfully exceeded SENTAC presumptive guidelines | SENTAC ranges are presumptive; judge may exceed them within statutory limits and must explain reasons | Judge exceeded presumptive SENTAC range illegally and should reduce sentence | Judge acted within discretion; SENTAC is nonbinding and sentence was within statutory limits, so no reduction granted |
| Applicability of "Vulnerability of Victim" aggravator | Victim was incapacitated/defenseless and was shot in the back, supporting vulnerability | Victim was not particularly young, old, disabled, or ill; vulnerability factor misapplied | Court found victim was effectively defenseless at the shooting and vulnerability aggravator justified |
| Applicability of "Repetitive Criminal Conduct" aggravator | Similar non-countable incidents and other similar charges support consideration of repetitive conduct | Prior similar incidents were either juvenile (age 13) or nolle prosequi and thus do not meet SENTAC's definition of repetitive convictions | Even if the factor were excluded, court stated it would not have imposed a lesser sentence; factor's presence does not require reversal |
| Whether court disregarded mitigating evidence, relied on false/unreliable facts, or sentenced with a closed mind (including reliance on surveillance video) | Court relied on PSI (police reports, witness statements, photos, autopsy) and considered Bell Report; video is inconclusive and does not undermine PSI | Court failed to fully consider Bell Report mitigation, misperceived facts, and should have viewed surveillance video as exculpatory | Court reviewed and credited the Bell Report, found it considered at sentencing, concluded it did not rely on demonstrably false or unreliable facts, and denied relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Siple v. State, 701 A.2d 79 (Del. 1997) (trial court may exceed SENTAC guidelines with explanation)
- Kurzmann v. State, 903 A.2d 702 (Del. 2006) (appellate review limits: sentence within statutory limits and not based on demonstrably false or unreliable facts)
- Davenport v. State, 150 A.3d 274 (Del. 2016) (overall sentencing rationale can reflect a single aggravating assessment rather than mechanistic SENTAC tally)
- Bailey v. State, 450 A.2d 400 (Del. 1982) (sentencing judge must have an open mind to mitigation)
- Mayes v. State, 604 A.2d 839 (Del. 1992) (trial court has broad discretion to rely on presentence report and other information at sentencing)
- Ellerbe v. State, 755 A.2d 387 (Del. 2000) (closed‑mind sentencing occurs when sentence is based on preconceived bias without consideration of offense and defendant)