Campbell v. State

Full title: JAMAR L. CAMPBELL, Defendant Below-Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE…

Court: Supreme Court of Delaware

Date published: Jun 18, 2004

No. 91, 2004 (Del. Jun. 18, 2004)

Opinion

No. 91, 2004.

Submitted: April 29, 2004.

Decided: June 18, 2004.

Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County, Cr. A. Nos. IN99-12-1779; 1780.

Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and JACOBS, Justices.

ORDER

Jack B. Jacobs, Justice.

This 18^th day of June 2004, upon consideration of the appellant's opening brief and the appellee's motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 25(a), it appears to the Court that:

(1) The defendant-appellant, Jamar L. Campbell, filed an appeal from the Superior Court's February 10, 2004 order denying his motion to correct sentence pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a). The State of Delaware has moved to affirm the Superior Court's judgment on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Campbell's opening brief that the appeal is without merit.¹ We agree and AFFIRM.

1 Supr. Ct. R. 25(a).

(2) In March 2001, Campbell was found guilty by a Superior Court jury of Possession of Cocaine with Intent to Deliver and Possession of Cocaine Within 300 Feet of a Park. Because this was Campbell's second conviction of Possession with Intent to Deliver, he was sentenced to a mandatory term of 15 years incarceration at Level V.² Campbell's convictions and sentences were affirmed by this Court on direct appeal.³

2 Del. Code Ann. tit. 16 Del. C. § 4763(a) (2003).

3 Campbell v. State, Del. Supr., No. 388, 2001, Walsh, J. (June 27, 2002).

(3) In his appeal, Campbell claims that his enhanced sentence was illegal because the prosecution did not provide proof at a hearing that he was a non-addict, as was required under Del. Code Ann. tit. 16 Del. C. § 4751(d).

(4) The Delaware criminal statutes provide two alternative sentencing schemes for defendants convicted for the second time of Possession With Intent to Deliver.⁴ Under Del. Code Ann. tit. 16 Del. C. § 4751(d), the prosecutor may attempt to demonstrate that the defendant is a non-addict and, if successful, the defendant is subject to a minimum mandatory sentence of 12 years Level V incarceration. In the alternative, under Del. Code Ann. tit. 16 Del. C. § 4763(a), the prosecutor may forego proof that the defendant is a non-addict and simply demonstrate that he has been convicted of the offense for the second time. Under that statute, the defendant is subject to a minimum mandatory sentence of 15 years Level V incarceration.⁵

4 Twyman v. State, Del. Supr., No. 68, 1997, Hartnett, J. (Nov. 12, 1997).

5 Id.

(5) In this case, Campbell was convicted under Section 4763(a), which does not require proof that the defendant is a non-addict. Because the prosecutor was not required under the statute to prove that Campbell was a non-addict, Campbell's claim must fail.

(6) It is manifest on the face of Campbell's opening brief that this appeal is without merit because the issues presented on appeal are controlled by settled Delaware law and, to the extent that judicial discretion is implicated, clearly there was no abuse of discretion.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 25(a), the State of Delaware's motion to affirm is GRANTED. The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.