Damiani-Melendez v. State ( 2024 )


Menu:
  •          IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    PABLO DAMIANI-MELENDEZ, §
    § No. 481, 2023
    Defendant Below,    §
    Appellant,          § Court Below–Superior Court
    § of the State of Delaware
    v.                  §
    § Cr. ID No. 1012004307A (N)
    STATE OF DELAWARE,      §
    §
    Appellee.           §
    Submitted: March 4, 2024
    Decided:   May 20, 2024
    Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices.
    ORDER
    After consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the appellee’s motion to
    affirm, and the Superior Court record, it appears to the Court that:
    (1)    Pablo Damiani-Melendez appeals the Superior Court’s denial of his
    motion for correction of illegal sentence. The State has filed a motion to affirm the
    judgment below on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Damiani-Melendez’s
    opening brief that his appeal is without merit. We agree and affirm.
    (2)    In December 2010, Damiani-Melendez was arrested and charged with
    more than one hundred felonies related to twelve armed robberies and two attempted
    armed robberies of retail stores located in New Castle County over a three-month
    period in 2010. Following a nine-day jury trial, Damiani-Melendez was found guilty
    of eighteen counts of first-degree robbery, eight counts of attempted first-degree
    robbery, thirty-three counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a
    felony, eleven counts of wearing a disguise during the commission of a felony, six
    counts of aggravated menacing, six counts of second-degree conspiracy, and one
    count of first-degree reckless endangering. On March 2, 2012, the Superior Court
    sentenced Damiani-Melendez to an aggregate of 297 years of incarceration. We
    affirmed Damiani-Melendez’s convictions and sentence on appeal.1
    (3)    In 2015, Damiani-Melendez, with the assistance of counsel, filed a
    motion for postconviction relief. The Superior Court denied the motion,2 and we
    affirmed its denial on appeal.3
    (4)    In May 2023, Damiani-Melendez filed a motion for correction of illegal
    sentence under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a). In support of his motion,
    Damiani-Melendez argued that the Double Jeopardy Clause and legislative intent
    preclude him from being convicted of (and sentenced for) more than one robbery
    arising out of a single incident. The Superior Court denied the motion,4 and this
    appeal followed.
    1
    Damiani-Melendez v. State, 
    55 A.3d 357
     (Del. 2012).
    2
    State v. Damiani-Melendez, 
    2015 WL 9015051
     (Del. Super. Ct. Nov. 25, 2015).
    3
    Damiani-Melendez v. State, 
    2016 WL 2928891
     (Del. May 13, 2016).
    4
    State v. Melendez, 
    2023 WL 8281151
     (Del. Super. Ct. Nov. 30, 2023).
    2
    (5)    We review the denial of a motion for correction of illegal sentence for
    abuse of discretion.5 To the extent a claim involves a question of law, we review the
    claim de novo.6 A sentence is illegal if it exceeds statutory limits, violates the
    Double Jeopardy Clause, is ambiguous with respect to the time and manner in which
    it is to be served, is internally contradictory, omits a term required to be imposed by
    statute, is uncertain as to its substance, or is a sentence that the judgment of
    conviction did not authorize.7
    (6)    On appeal, Damiani-Melendez argues, as he did below, that his
    sentences violate the Double Jeopardy Clause and run afoul of legislative intent
    because he received more than one sentence for the robbery of each store. More
    specifically, Damiani-Melendez argues that the “single-theft rule”8 precludes his
    convictions and sentencing for multiple robbery counts arising from the robbery of
    one store because his actions constituted a continuous course of conduct for which
    he may only be punished once. Damiani-Melendez also argues that his sentences
    5
    Fountain v. State, 
    2014 WL 4102069
    , at *1 (Del. Aug. 19, 2014).
    6
    
    Id.
    7
    Brittingham v. State, 
    705 A.2d 577
    , 578 (Del. 1998).
    8
    See Parker v. State, 
    201 A.3d 1181
    , 1189 (Del. 2019) (explaining that “[i]n the theft context, …
    where property belonging to different owners is taken at the same time and place as a single or
    continuous act or transaction, that taking constitutes a single criminal offense” under the
    multiplicity doctrine).
    3
    for aggravated menacing must merge with his sentences for first-degree robbery.
    We find no merit to Damiani-Melendez’s arguments.
    (7)    “[I]t is well-settled law that a defendant may be separately charged and
    punished for multiple counts of robbery occurring during a single episode of robbery
    when there are multiple victims involved.”9 We recently reaffirmed this rule.10 We
    note that, contrary to Damiani-Melendez’s claim on appeal, robbery is not a property
    crime. “Robbery is a violent crime against the person of the victim. Therefore, the
    multiplicity doctrine implications applicable to robbery are more akin to those
    arising in sexual assault cases than in cases involving property-oriented crimes.”11
    Simply put, Damiani-Melendez’s convictions and sentences for multiple robbery
    counts when there were multiple victims involved neither violate the Double
    Jeopardy Clause nor run afoul of legislative intent.
    (8)    We review Damiani-Melendez’s argument that his aggravated
    menacing charges should have merged with his robbery charges for plain error
    9
    Elder v. State, 
    1996 WL 145812
    , at *2 (Del. Mar. 8, 1996); see Neal v. State, 
    3 A.3d 222
    , 224
    (Del. 2010) (affirming a defendant’s convictions for robbery counts involving store owners where
    the defendant intimidated the store owners before taking the store’s money from other employees).
    10
    Yelardy v. State, 
    2024 WL 1954299
     (Del. May 2, 2024) (affirming the Superior Court’s denial
    of a defendant’s motion for correction of illegal sentence where the defendant had been convicted
    of four counts of first-degree robbery stemming from a single bank robbery involving four bank
    tellers).
    11
    Washington v. State, 
    836 A.2d 485
    , 489 (Del. 2003) (upholding a defendant’s two convictions
    for first-degree robbery that involved the same victim and took place almost contemporaneously
    because the evidence showed that the defendant had formed separate intents to commit the
    robberies).
    4
    because he did not raise it in the Superior Court in the first instance. 12 There is no
    plain error here. It is true that a defendant’s convictions for first-degree robbery and
    aggravated menacing merge when they involve the same victim and take place
    during the same occurrence.13 But not so here, where the conduct that formed the
    basis for Damiani-Melendez’s aggravated menacing charges either involved a
    different victim or took place during a different occurrence than conduct that formed
    the basis for his first-degree robbery convictions.
    NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to affirm
    be GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court be AFFIRMED.
    BY THE COURT:
    /s/ Karen L. Valihura
    Justice
    12
    Del. Supr. Ct. R. 8 (“Only questions fairly presented to the trial court may be presented for
    review; provided, however, that when the interests of justice so require, the Court may consider
    and determine any question not so presented.”).
    13
    Poteat v. State, 
    840 A.2d 599
    , 606 (Del. 2003) (holding that a defendant’s convictions for first-
    degree robbery and aggravated menacing must be merged when they involve the same victim and
    take place during the same occurrence).
    5
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 481,2023

Judges: Valihura J.

Filed Date: 5/20/2024

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 5/21/2024