Horsey v. State

• Decision Date: 04 May 2022
• Docket Number: 345,2021
• Parties: RAYQUIAN HORSEY, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Appellee.
• Court: Supreme Court of Delaware

RAYQUIAN HORSEY, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Appellee.

No. 345, 2021

Supreme Court of Delaware

May 4, 2022

Submitted: March 7, 2022^[1]

Court Below-Superior Court of the State of Delaware Cr. ID No 1910015287 (K)

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; TRAYNOR and MONTGOMERY-REEVES Justices.

ORDER

Tamika R. Montgomery-Reeves Justice

Upon consideration of the opening brief, motion to affirm, and record on appeal, it appears to the Court that:

(1) On March 31, 2020, Rayquian Horsey pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a person prohibited ("PFBPP") in exchange for the dismissal of other drug and weapon charges. On May 24, 2021, the Superior Court sentenced Horsey to eight years of Level V incarceration, suspended for one year of Level III probation. As part of his sentence, Horsey was to be evaluated for substance abuse and to follow all recommended treatment.

(2) On August 27, 2021, the Department of Correction filed a VOP report. The VOP report alleged, among other things, that Horsey had been charged with new crimes, failed to report to his probation officer since May, and failed to complete a substance abuse evaluation. After a hearing on October 22, 2021, the Superior Court found that Horsey had violated his probation. The Superior Court sentenced Horsey, effective October 1, 2021, to seven years and six months of Level V incarceration, suspended after one year for decreasing levels of supervision. This appeal followed.

(3) In his opening brief, Horsey does not dispute that he violated his probation, but instead contends that the VOP sentence was "extreme" for a first, technical VOP.^[2] This Court's appellate review of a sentence is extremely limited and generally ends upon a determination that the sentence is within statutory limits.^[3]If the sentence falls within the statutory limits, "we consider only whether it is based on factual predicates which are false, impermissible, or lack minimal reliability, judicial vindictiveness or bias, or a closed mind."^[4] (4) Once Horsey 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 Horsey's sentence.^[5] Horsey does not argue that the VOP sentence exceeded statutory limits or the Level V time previously suspended. Nor has Horsey identified any basis to suggest that the VOP sentence was based on factual predicates that are false, impermissible, or lack minimal reliability, judicial vindictiveness or bias, or a closed mind. It is manifest on the face of Horsey's opening brief that his appeal is without merit.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State's motion to affirm is GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.

---------

^[1] The motion to affirm was refiled on ...