Opinion
ID#: 1208017185
11-12-2015
LEROY S. TAYLOR, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Appellee-Plaintiff.
pc: Andrew G. Ahern, III, Equire Rebecca Song, Deputy Attorney General
ORDER
Upon Appeal from Sentence Imposed by the Court of Common Pleas - AFFIRMED.
1. After the trial court sentenced Defendant to six months in prison for repeatedly violating probation on a sentence imposed for a misdemeanor drug conviction, Defendant filed a timely appeal. Defendant argued the sentencing judge exhibited a closed mind and the sentence imposed was excessive and an abuse of discretion.
2. On July 6, 2015, the State filed an answering brief in opposition, to which Defendant did not reply. Accordingly, the court deems the State's arguments as unopposed.
3. The court observes that Defendant's core argument was based on the fact that when he violated probation, Defendant was being supervised at Level 1, and the violation of probation sentence was the maximum allowable under the law, significantly exceeding the SENTAC guidelines.
4. The State, however, points out that 11 weeks after Defendant was put on probation, he was arrested for two counts of felony, drug dealing, possession of marijuana, and endangering the welfare of a child. Ultimately, he pleaded guilty in this court to possession of cocaine.
5. For the new conviction, Defendant was placed on Level 2 probation, and required to submit to three random drug screens. Fifteen days after that sentence was imposed, however, Defendant was arrested again for, among other charges, a drug-related felony.
6. On May 1, 2015, the trial court found Defendant in violation of probation and imposed the sentence under review.
7. Although the trial court's sentence exceeded the SENTAC guidelines, that does not establish the sentence was the product of a closed mind or any abuse of discretion.
8. As the trial court imposed the sentence, it explained why it was exceeding the SENTAC guidelines. Specifically, the sentence reflects Defendant's repetitive conduct, an aggravating factor for SENTAC's purposes. Defendant had four prior drug felony convictions, was on probation for a drug-related offense, and was charged with a new drug felony. Defendant not only repeatedly violated the probation sentence at issue, but in the process, he violated a probation sentence imposed by this court.
9. The trial court's sentence appears to reflect a probation officer's recommendation based on his observations that Defendant's behavior "represents an immediate threat to the community . . . [and] is repetitive and flagrantly defies the authority of the court."
10. Taking the record and the State's arguments into account, the court sees no basis for Defendant to have replied to the State's submission. Hence, the court's conclusion that the State's position is uncontested and Defendant has abandoned his appeal. Even if that conclusion is incorrect, the sentence reflects reasonable exercise of discretion. AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Date November 12, 2015
/s/ Fred S. Silverman
Judge oc: Prothonotary (Criminal Division)
pc: Andrew G. Ahern, III, Equire
Rebecca Song, Deputy Attorney General