Ramsey v. State

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
ANDRE L. RAMSEY, §
§
Defendant Below- § No. 475, 2018
Appellant, §
§ Court Below—Superior Court
v. § of the State of Delaware
§
STATE OF DELAWARE, § Cr. No. 1207013999 (N)
§
Plaintiff-Below- §
Appellee. §
Submitted: February 7, 2019
Decided: March 22, 2019
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VAUGHN and SEITZ, Justices.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the State’s motion to
affirm, and the record below, it appears to the Court that:
(1) The appellant, Andre L. Ramsey, appeals a sentence the Superior Court
imposed upon him for violating the terms of his probation and conditional release.
The State has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment on the ground that it
is manifest on the face of Ramsey’s opening brief that the appeal is without merit.
We agree and affirm.
(2) The record reflects that Ramsey pleaded guilty to three charges in order
to resolve two pending cases on January 17, 2013. Specifically, Ramsey pleaded
guilty to identity theft, possession of a firearm by a person prohibited (“PFBPP”),
and drug dealing. In exchange for his plea, the State dismissed eleven additional
charges. The Superior Court declared Ramsey to be a habitual offender under 11
Del. C. § 4214(a) and sentenced him as follows: (i) for identity theft, two years of
Level V incarceration, with credit for time served and no probation to follow; (ii) for
PFBPP, five years of Level V incarceration with no probation to follow; and (iii) for
drug dealing, eight years of Level V incarceration, suspended for probation with
decreasing levels of supervision. The Superior Court ordered the sentences be
served consecutively.
(3) Ramsey appealed his convictions and this Court affirmed on direct
appeal.1 Thereafter, the record reflects that Ramsey petitioned the Superior Court to
modify or correct his sentence on several occasions. On December 12, 2017, the
Superior Court modified Ramsey’s sentence to give the Department of Correction
(“DOC”) discretion to determine the appropriate Level IV placement for Ramsey.
(4) In April of 2018, DOC released Ramsey to Level IV home confinement.
In June of 2018, Ramsey was arrested and charged with four counts of misdemeanor
theft. On August 10, 2018, Ramsey pleaded guilty to three counts of misdemeanor
theft and the State entered a nolle prosequi on the fourth count. The Superior Court
held a violation of probation (“VOP”) hearing on August 15, 2018. The Superior
1
Ramsey v. State, 2013 WL 5522598 (Del. Oct. 3, 2013).
2
Court found Ramsey in violation of probation for his drug dealing conviction and in
violation of conditional release for his PFBPP conviction. In connection with the
revocation of Ramsey’s conditional release, the Superior Court ordered that he
surrender all previously earned good time and serve the balance of the Level V
sentence from which he was released. On the VOP, the Superior Court sentenced
Ramsey to eight years of Level V incarceration with credit for time served,
suspended for probation at decreasing levels of supervision. This appeal followed.
(5) Ramsey raises two issues on appeal. First, he contends he was not on
conditional release when he picked up the new criminal charges. Second, Ramsey
argues the Superior Court abused its discretion by rescinding his “statutory good
time” credit when it sentenced him for violating conditional release. We find no
merit to either claim.
(6) Conditional release occurs when an inmate is released from
incarceration into the community “by reason of diminution of the period of
confinement through merit and good behavior credits.”2 According to DOC’s
Offender Status Sheet, Ramsey’s Maximum Expiration Date (“MED”) for his Level
V sentence for identity theft and PFBPP is July 13, 2019. DOC released Ramsey
early due to his accumulation of good time credits under 11 Del. C. § 4383. Ramsey
2
11 Del. C. § 4302(4).
3
did not have probation associated with his Level V sentence for identity theft and
PFBPP. Accordingly, when DOC released Ramsey in April of 2018 to Level IV
home confinement, he was on conditional release until his MED. He was still on
conditional release when he was arrested on new charges two months later.
(7) Ramsey also contends that the Superior Court improperly ordered he
forfeit his “statutory days” when it sentenced him for violating the terms of his
conditional release.3 Ramsey correctly observes that 11 Del. C. § 4381 provides
good time may be earned for an inmate’s good behavior (“statutory good time”) and
for an inmate’s participation in certain programs (“meritorious good time”). Ramsey
argues only his meritorious good time was forfeited when he violated the terms of
his conditional release. The Court’s review of a sentence is extremely limited and
its inquiry is generally limited to determining whether the sentence falls within the
statutory limits prescribed by the legislature.4 The General Assembly has decreed
that any person under DOC custody at Level IV or V who is convicted of a crime
during the term of the sentence must forfeit “all good time accumulated to the date
3
After Ramsey filed a notice of appeal with the Court but before he filed his opening brief, Ramsey
filed two motions in Superior Court seeking correction of his sentence and raising the same
argument he raises here. The Superior Court denied Ramsey’s motions on December 19, 2018,
finding DOC had correctly calculated the balance of the sentence Ramsey has left to serve. That
decision is not on appeal in this case.
4
Mayes v. State, 604 A.2d 839, 842-43 (Del. 1992).
4
of the criminal act.”5 Ramsey was in DOC custody at Level IV home confinement
when he committed new crimes. Accordingly, we do not find the sentence imposed
by the Superior Court was an abuse of discretion.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior
Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ James T. Vaughn, Jr.
Justice
5
11 Del. C. § 4382(a) (emphasis added).
5