Opinion
ID No. 0212012927.
Submitted: May 11, 2007.
Decided: August 30, 2007.
On Defendant's Motion for Postconviction Relief. DENIED.
On Defendant's Motion for Sentence Modification. DENIED.
Khalif Talib, Howard R. Young Correctional, Wilmington, DE.
Dear Mr. Talib:
The Court is in receipt of your Motion for Postconviction Relief filed with the Prothonotary on May 11, 2007. This document was filed at approximately the same time as your Motion for Sentence Modification received by the Prothonotary in late April, 2007. While put in two different pleadings, your complaint is generally the same, that is the Court sentenced you inconsistent with the Truth-In-Sentencing guideline in non-conformity with the plea agreement that was entered into between the State and you. Based upon the reasoning below, both motions are being denied.
First is your allegation that the sentence is inconsistent with the plea agreement entered into between you and the State. A review of that document reflects that you pled guilty to Manslaughter and Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony, and in return for that plea the additional charges as well as a violation of probation would be dismissed and a presentence investigation would be ordered. You did enter the plea, the State did dismiss the charges which they promised they would, and a presentence investigation was ordered. Nothing further was promised in the agreement, and a violation of the plea agreement did not occur.
As to your assertion that the Court has sentenced you outside of the SENTAC (TIS) guidelines, the Delaware Supreme Court has specifically ruled that the sentencing standards set forth in these guidelines are voluntary and non-binding. As such, no party to a criminal case has any legal or constitutional right to appeal to any court a statutory authorized sentence simply because it does not conform to the guideline standards. Therefore, your basis for postconviction and modification of sentence is without legal basis as the Court did sentence you within the statutory maximum penalty allowed under the law. The fact that the Court decided in its discretion not to follow the SENTAC guidelines in this particular case does not provide you a legal basis for a postconviction relief or a modification of sentence.
Siple v. State, 701 A.2d 79 (Del. 1997).
Finally, based upon all the facts which the Court was provided during the course of this matter, I continue to believe the sentence imposed is fair and appropriate. As a result of your conduct an individual died, and a plea agreement that was negotiated by your counsel was a favorable resolution of this matter to you. The Court finds the reasons set forth in your pleadings provide no basis for a modification or postconviction relief, and your motions are denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.