 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hamby v. State10/31/2005
e judge told Hamby that he would not be sentenced as a habitual offender. Hamby's attorney stated for the record that this did not "change [Hamby's] decision to go forward with this plea." In the absence of any showing of prejudice, we also find Hamby's second claim of ineffective assistance to be without merit.
(7) Hamby's claim that his sentence is illegal because it exceeds the SENTAC guidelines also is without merit. It is well-settled that the Superior Court's deviation from the non-binding SENTAC guidelines does not, in and of itself, constitute a valid basis for appealing a sentence. There also is no basis for Hamby's complaint that his co-defendant received a lesser sentence, since Hamby, unlike his co-defendant, had several prior felony convictions and violations of probation on his record.
(8) Hamby's final claim that the Superior Court abused its discretion by denying his motion for post-conviction relief is equally unavailing. Our review of the record reveals no error or abuse of discretion on the part of the Superior Court.
(9) It is manifest on the face of Hamby'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 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.
Page 1 2 Delaware DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|