Forehand v. State

997 A.2d 673 (Del. 2010) · Supreme Court of Delaware · June 22, 2010 · No. No. 292, 2009

Summary

The Delaware Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of classifying escape after conviction, including a nonviolent “walk away” escape, as a violent felony under Delaware’s habitual offender statute. The court also rejected the defendant’s Eighth Amendment challenge to his eight-year mandatory minimum sentence. A dissent argued that classifying nonviolent Class D escape as a violent felony lacked a rational basis.

Court
Supreme Court of Delaware
Writing for the Court
Berger, Justice; Steele, Chief Justice; Holland, Justice; Jacobs, Justice; Ridgely, Justice
Jurisdiction
Delaware
Decision date
June 22, 2010
Docket number
No. 292, 2009
Procedural posture
Forehand appealed to the Supreme Court of Delaware after pleading guilty to escape after conviction and being sentenced as an habitual offender to a mandatory minimum of eight years at Level V.
Standard of review
Substantive due process rational-basis review; the statute was presumed constitutional, and Forehand bore the burden of showing that no reasonably conceivable facts supported the legislative classification. The Eighth Amendment claim was reviewed under a threshold comparison of the offense and sentence for gross disproportionality.
Precedential value
Published en banc opinion of the Supreme Court of Delaware; majority holding is precedential.
Parties
Kevin L. Forehand v. State of Delaware
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

substantive due processrational basis reviewsentencingconstitutional lawstatutory interpretation

Practice areas

constitutional lawcriminal lawsentencinghabitual offender sentencing

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Delaware's classification of escape after conviction, including a nonviolent 'walk away' escape, as a violent felony violated substantive due process.
  2. Whether Forehand's eight-year mandatory minimum habitual-offender sentence for escape after conviction was grossly disproportionate in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Holdings

  1. The classification of escape after conviction as a violent felony under 11 Del. C. § 4201(c) was rationally related to legitimate legislative purposes and was not unconstitutional, even when the particular escape involved no actual violence.
  2. The eight-year mandatory minimum sentence did not violate the Eighth Amendment because comparing the Class D escape-after-conviction offense with the sentence did not create an inference of gross disproportionality.

Key quotations

It is entirely reasonable to label all escapes after conviction as violent felonies because the perpetrators are convicted criminals who may use violence to avoid apprehension by the police. (675)
A convicted felon who fails to return to custody while on work release demonstrates, by his conduct, that it was a mistake to place him or her at that level of supervision. (676)
An 8 year prison sentence may be considered harsh, but it does not approach the grossly disproportionate standard required for Eighth Amendment protection. (677)

Factual background

Forehand was serving a Level IV work-release sentence at the Plummer Community Corrections Center when he failed to return after work on September 1, 2008. A warrant issued the next morning, and police apprehended him one week later. He pleaded guilty to escape after conviction and was sentenced as an habitual offender to an eight-year mandatory minimum at Level V.

Procedural history

Forehand was indicted on drug, assault, resisting-arrest, and related charges. He pleaded guilty to second-degree assault and received a suspended Level V sentence followed by Level IV work release and Level III supervision. After failing to return to the Plummer Community Corrections Center, he was arrested, pleaded guilty to escape after conviction, and received an eight-year mandatory minimum habitual-offender sentence. The Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed the Superior Court's judgment.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…