Brown v. State

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE MICHAEL BROWN, Defendant BelowAppellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff BelowAppellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 459, 2006 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County Cr. ID. 0102011905 Submitted: September 25, 2006 Decided: November 16, 2006 Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices. ORDER This 16th day of November 2006, upon consideration of the appellant s opening brief and the State s motion to affirm, it appears to the Court that: (1) The appellant, Michael Brown, filed this appeal from the Superior Court s denial of his motion for correction of illegal sentence. In his opening brief, Brown asserts that the Superior Court s sentence for his violation of probation was illegal because it exceeded the recommended sentence contained in the SENTAC sentencing guidelines. (2) The State has filed a motion to affirm the Superior Court s judgment on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Brown s opening brief that his appeal is without merit. The State asserts that a trial court s departure from the sentencing guidelines is no basis for relief on appeal if the sentence is otherwise within the statutorily-authorized range of sentences. (3) After careful consideration of appellant s opening brief and the State s motion to affirm, we find it manifest that the judgment of the Superior Court should be affirmed on the basis of the Superior Court s order dated July 27, 2006. An upward departure from the sentencing guidelines does not make a sentence illegal and does not provide any basis for relief on appeal.* Accordingly, the Superior Court did not err in denying Brown s motion for correction of illegal sentence. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Randy J. Holland Justice * Siple v. State, 701 A.2d 79, 82-83 (Del. 1997). 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.