Sandoval v. State ( 2019 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
FRANCISCO SANDOVAL, §
§
Defendant Below, § No. 52, 2019
Appellant, §
§ Court Below—Superior Court
v. § of the State of Delaware
§
STATE OF DELAWARE, § Cr. ID No. 0808004730 (S)
§
Plaintiff Below, §
Appellee. §
Submitted: April 17, 2019
Decided: June 10, 2019
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; SEITZ and TRAYNOR, Justices.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the appellee’s motion to
affirm, and the record below, it appears to the Court that:
(1) The appellant, Francisco Sandoval, filed this appeal from the Superior
Court’s January 18, 2019 order sentencing him for a violation of probation (“VOP”).
The State of Delaware has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment on the
ground that it is manifest on the face of Sandoval’s opening brief that the appeal is
without merit. We agree and affirm.
(2) The record reflects that, in January 2009, Sandoval entered a Robinson
plea1 to Rape in the Third Degree and Endangering a Child. The Superior Court
sentenced Sandoval as follows: (i) for Rape in the Third Degree, twenty years of
Level V incarceration, suspended after two years for five years of Level III
probation; and (ii) for Endangering a Child, two years of Level V incarceration,
suspended for one year of Level III probation. Sandoval did not appeal.
(3) On February 7, 2014, the Superior Court found that Sandoval had
violated his probation. The Superior Court sentenced Sandoval as follows: (i) for
Rape in the Third Degree, eighteen years of Level V incarceration, suspended for
five years of Level III probation; and (ii) for Endangering a Child, two years of Level
V incarceration, suspended for one year of Level III probation. Sandoval did not
appeal.
(4) On October 5, 2018, the Superior Court found that Sandoval had
violated his probation again. For Rape in the Third Degree, Sandoval was sentenced
to seventeen years of Level V incarceration, suspended for one year of Level III
probation. For Endangering the Welfare of a Child, Sandoval was discharged as
unimproved. Sandoval did not appeal.
1
Robinson v. State, 291 A.2d 279, 281 (Del. 1972) (permitting the acceptance of a guilty plea in
the absence of an admission of guilt).
2
(5) On January 8, 2019, an administrative warrant was filed for Sandoval’s
VOP. The warrant alleged that Sandoval had tested positive for cocaine several
times, admitted to using cocaine and heroin, failed to report for two weekly visits,
was discharged from one substance abuse program for missing multiple
appointments, and failed to show that he had enrolled in another program. On
January 18, 2019, the Superior Court found that Sandoval had violated his probation
and sentenced him to sixteen years and six months of Level V incarceration,
suspended for one year of Level IV residential substance abuse treatment, followed
by six months of Level III probation. This appeal followed. As the appealing party,
Sandoval was required to—but did not—request a transcript of the January 18, 2019
VOP hearing for this appeal.2
(6) In his opening brief on appeal, Sandoval argues that: (i) he was not on
probation at the time of the October 2018 VOP hearing; (ii) he and his probation
officer had a deal that he could violate his probation without being reported; (iii) his
counsel was ineffective for failing to inform the Superior Court about his deal with
his probation officer, failing to inform the Superior Court that he preferred Level V
time to a substance abuse program, and failing to file an appeal; and (iv) his sentence
2
Supr. Ct. R. 14(e) (“Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, the appellant's appendix shall contain
such portions of the trial transcript as are necessary to give this Court a fair and accurate account
of the context in which the claim of error occurred and must include a transcript of all evidence
relevant to the challenged finding or conclusion.”). See also Tricoche v. State, 525 A.2d 151, 154
(Del. 1987).
3
and the conditions of his confinement constitute cruel and unusual punishment. We
will not consider Sandoval’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims for the first
time on direct appeal.3
(7) The remaining claims lack merit. Sandoval’s claims concerning his
October 18, 2018 VOP are outside the scope of this appeal. If Sandoval wished to
challenge that VOP, he should have filed an appeal from that VOP. As to Sandoval’s
claimed deal with his probation officer, he offers nothing to support the existence of
such a deal and does not dispute that he violated his probation. Under these
circumstances, the Superior Court did not err in finding he violated his probation.
(8) Finally, this Court’s appellate review of a sentence is extremely limited
and generally ends upon a determination that the sentence is within statutory limits.4
Once Sandoval committed a VOP, the Superior Court could impose any period of
incarceration up to and including the balance of the Level V time remaining on
Sandoval’s sentence.5 The non-Level V sentence imposed by the Superior Court
was within statutory limits and did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. We
also conclude that the conditions of Sandoval’s confinement, which include delayed
access to medicated shampoo and lack of access to a commissary to buy toiletries,
are not cruel and unusual.
3
Wolford v. State, 2015 WL 745696, at *2 (Del. Feb. 19, 2015).
4
Kurzmann v. State, 903 A.2d 702, 714 (Del. 2006).
5
11 Del. C. § 4334(c); Pavulak v. State, 880 A.2d 1044, 1046 (Del. 2005).
4
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is
GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Gary F. Traynor
Justice
5