State v. Like ( 2023 )

SUPERIOR COURT
OF THE
STATE OF DELAWARE
CRAIG A. KARSNITZ 1 The Circle, Suite 2
RESIDENT JUDGE GEORGETOWN, DE 19947
May 18. 2023
Daniel A. Strumpf, Esquire David Hume, IV, Esquire
Assistant Public Defender Deputy Attorney General
Office of Defense Services Chief Prosecutor, Sussex County
Public Defender’s Office Department of Justice
14 The Circle, 2nd Floor 13 The Circle
Georgetown, DE 19947 Georgetown, DE 19947
Re: State of Delaware v. Stacey L. Like
Def. ID# 2101000019
Rule 35(b) Motion for Reduction of Sentence
Gentlemen:
On November 2, 2022, Stacey L. Like (“Defendant”), pursuant to a Pre-
Sentence Plea Agreement and a Truth-in-Sentencing Guilty Plea Form, pled guilty
to two Class B Violent Felony charges: First Degree Assault and Possession of a
Firearm During the Commission of a Felony (“PFDCF”). I ordered a Pre-Sentence
Investigation before sentencing.
On January 13, 2023, I sentenced Defendant as follows: on the charge of First
Degree Assault, 25 years at Level V (with credit for 743 days served), suspended
after 3 years at Level V for 2 tears at Level III; on the charge of PFDCF, 25 years at
Level V, suspended after 4 years at Level V for 2 years at Level III. The sentences
run consecutively, for a total of 7 years of Level V time. I also imposed various other
conditions, including the payment of court costs and monetary assessments,
restitution, no contact with the victim, providing a DNA sample, mental health and
substance abuse treatment, forfeiture of seized items, and completion of a domestic
violence intervention program.
On April 5, 2023, Defendant timely filed1 a Motion for Reduction of Sentence
(the “Motion”) pursuant to Delaware Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b). The State
filed its Response on May 2, 2023. This is my ruling on the Motion.
SENTAC Guidelines
The Delaware Sentencing Accountability Commission ("SENTAC") was
created for the purpose of establishing a system in Delaware "that emphasizes
accountability of the offender to the criminal justice system and accountability of
the criminal justice system to the public." 2 To fulfill that purpose, SENTAC
establishes sentencing guidelines located within the Benchbook.3 The presumptive
1
Within 90 days after imposition of sentence under Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b).
2
Delaware Sentencing Accountability Commission Benchbook, at 21 (2020) ("the
Benchbook"). The Benchbook can be located at https://cjc.delaware.gov/wp-
content/uploads/sites/6l/2020/02/Benchbook-2020F. pdf.
3
The Benchbook at 21.
2
sentences established by SENTAC “are based on the classification of the offense,
and whether it is violent or non-violent in nature."4
Facing the potential of a steep minimum mandatory sentence if she were
convicted of attempted murder at trial, Defendant pressed the State for a plea to a
minimum of 3 years, but ultimately accepted a plea to a 5-year minimum mandatory
sentence, with the full understanding that the guidelines established by SENTAC are
presumptive only, and not binding on me.5
First Degree Assault has a sentencing range of 2 to 25 years with a
presumptive sentence of 2 to 5 years. PFDCF has a sentencing range of 3 to 25 years
with a presumptive sentence of 3 to 5 years. Thus, Defendant faced a presumptive
sentence of 5 to 10 years. I imposed a sentence of 7 years, within the presumptive
range.
The Benchbook also provides:
The standard sentence range is presumed to be appropriate for the
typical criminal case. The court may impose a sentence outside the
standard sentence range for the offense if it finds that there are
substantial and compelling reasons justifying an exceptional sentence.6
However, I did not issue an exceptional sentence. Therefore, it is deemed to be
4
Id.
5
Walters v. State, 2013 WL 4540040 at *1 (Del. Supr. Aug. 23, 2013).
6
The Benchbook at 107.
3
appropriate.
The Benchbook also enumerates specific aggravating and mitigating factors
that I should consider when imposing a sentence.7 While the "standard sentence
range is presumed to be appropriate for the typical criminal case," the existence of
such factors can justify upward or downward departures from those guidelines. 8
Each of the enumerated aggravating and mitigating factors includes definitions
promulgated by SENTAC.9
Defendant asserts that there is a mismatch between the mitigating and
aggravating factors under SENTAC. She correctly states that I found mitigators such
as: a lack of criminal history, undue duress or compulsion, need for treatment
exceeds need for punishment, remorse, and extreme emotional distress triggered by
a “toxic stew” of psychopharmacological, relationship, and mental health issues. But
she then incorrectly states that I found no applicable aggravators. This is simply not
true. I gave considerable weight to the grievous effect on the victim and his family,
including the fear and pain resulting from his original wound and multiple
subsequent surgeries. He faces a lifetime of emotional trauma. I was certainly within
7
The Benchbook at 110-14.
8
The Benchbook at 110.
9
The Benchbook at 112-14.
4
my rights to weigh these horrific aggravating factors against the extenuating factors
in determining an appropriate sentence.
There is no constitutional or statutory right under Delaware law to appeal a
criminal punishment on the sole basis that it deviates from the SENTAC
sentencing guidelines."10 "[T]he trial court must explain its reasons for doing so,
but it is authorized to exceed the SENTAC guidelines without making any factual
findings beyond those reflected in the jury's verdict," 11 or, as in this case, the
charges to which the Defendant pled guilty. While it is within my discretion to
reduce a criminal sentence, justice is not served by a redundant reassessment of
the facts known and available to me at the time of sentencing.12 While Defendant
is displeased with the sentence imposed, no new or different facts have been
offered that were not known to the parties at the time of sentencing.
Specific Cases
I have looked at the three cases cited by Defendant. However, every criminal
case is different, and the particular factors underlying a sentencing decision in those
cases do not inform the exercise of my discretion in the sentencing in this case.
10
Siple v. Slate, 701 A.2d 79, 83 (Del.1997).
11
Id.12
See In re Briddelle, 2004 WL 344006 (Del. Super. Feb. 17, 2004) (noting that "[t]here
must be some finality to cases.").
5
Standard of Review
Most importantly, Defendant does not assert that I abused my discretion in
sentencing her. Yet that is the standard that the Delaware Supreme Court uses in
reviewing a denial of a Rule 35(b) Motion.13
The Delaware Supreme Court has stated: “We review a sentence
determination on appeal only to determine whether it is within the applicable
statutory limits and whether it is based upon factual predicates which are false or
impermissible, or which lack minimal reliability, judicial vindictiveness or bias,
or a closed mind."14 And further, "In Delaware, the trial court has broad discretion
in determining which information to rely on in imposing a sentence, including
information pertaining to the defendant's personal history and behavior, the
presentencing report, and other sources." 15 "Thus, in reviewing a sentence
within statutory limits, this Court will not find error of law or abuse of discretion
unless it is clear from the record below that a sentence has been imposed on the
basis of demonstrably false information or information lacking a minimal
indicium of reliability.”16 Under these standards, my sentence was not based on
13
Mumford v. State, 2023 WL 1793844, at *2 (Del. Feb. 7, 2023).
14
Kurzmann v. State 903 A.2d 702, 714 (Del. 2 0 0 6 ).
15
Mayes v. State, 604 A .2d 839, 842 (Del. 1992).
16
Id., quoting Ward v. State, 567 A.2d 1296, 1297 (Del. 1989).
6
false, impermissible, or unreliable facts.
Purpose of Incarceration
Finally, Defendant asks me to reconsider the purpose of sentencing in a case
like this. Given the mitigating factors mentioned above, do factors such as
retribution, punishment or deterrence serve a purpose? Yes, incarceration delays
Defendant’s return to the community and her family. But is also serves as justice for
the crimes to which she pled guilty and the victim who continues to suffer. As stated
above, no new or different facts have been offered that were not known at the
time of sentencing.
This was a difficult case. Defendant lived a law-abiding life until she
committed these crimes. She was, and is, devoted to her family. I have no doubt
that the medication prescribed by a medical professional after one virtual visit
played a role in what happened. But when one points a gun at another and pulls
the trigger, consequences flow, both to the victim and the perpetrator.
I spent a substantial amount of time reviewing the case and evaluating an
appropriate sentence. SENTAC is a guide only. I remain satisfied that the
sentence I imposed upon Defendant is appropriate.
7
For the reasons stated above, I DENY Defendant’s Motion for Reduction of
Sentence.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Craig A. Karsnitz
cc: Prothonotary
8