Harmon v. State

Harmon v. State · Supreme Court of the State of Delaware · September 8, 2016 · No. Nos. 13, 2016 & 14, 2016

Summary

The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s judgments and sentences following Rashai Harmon’s guilty pleas to manslaughter, reckless endangering, and disregarding a police officer’s signal, as well as related probation violations. The Court rejected Harmon’s challenges concerning his probation violations, the voluntariness of his guilty pleas, the evidence, sentencing, consecutive terms, and alleged judicial bias. The Court also granted counsel’s Rule 26(c) motion to withdraw as moot after concluding that the appeal lacked any arguably meritorious issue.

Court
Supreme Court of the State of Delaware
Writing for the Court
Leo E. Strine, Jr., Chief Justice; Holland, Justice; Seitz, Justice
Jurisdiction
Delaware
Decision date
September 8, 2016
Docket number
Nos. 13, 2016 & 14, 2016
Procedural posture
Consolidated appeal from sentences imposed for new criminal convictions and violations of probation. Appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an accompanying no-merit brief under Delaware Supreme Court Rule 26(c).
Standard of review
Under Rule 26(c), the court determines whether counsel conscientiously examined the record and law for arguably appealable claims and independently reviews the record to determine whether the appeal is wholly devoid of at least arguably appealable issues. Unpreserved claims are reviewed for plain error. Appellate review of sentencing is limited to whether the sentence is within statutory limits and whether it rests on false, impermissible, or unreliable factual predicates, judicial vindictiveness or bias, or a closed mind.
Precedential value
Published per curiam order affirming the Superior Court; the opinion applies established Delaware law to the record.
Parties
Rashai Harmon v. State of Delaware
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

appellate procedurestandard of reviewcriminal procedureplea bargainingsentencing

Practice areas

criminal appellate procedurecriminal proceduresentencingguilty pleasprobation violations

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Harmon could be adjudicated in violation of probation based on drug possession and the commission of new crimes despite not being charged with drug possession.
  2. Whether Harmon's guilty plea was unknowing, unintelligent, or involuntary because he allegedly expected a sentence capped at ten years.
  3. Whether Harmon's guilty plea preserved a challenge that he should have been charged with Driving Under the Influence as a lesser included offense.
  4. Whether Harmon's guilty plea permitted him to challenge the State's evidence, including the SUV driver's statement and the deceased passenger's medical history.
  5. Whether the Superior Court sentenced Harmon with a closed mind or otherwise imposed legally impermissible sentences.
  6. Whether Harmon was entitled to concurrent sentences or removal of the statutory early-release restrictions under 11 Del. C. § 4204(k).
  7. Whether alleged misconduct by an unrelated police officer provided a basis to avoid or reduce Harmon's punishment.

Holdings

  1. The absence of a separate drug-possession charge did not prevent the Superior Court from finding a probation violation based on Harmon's possession of drugs or, independently, his commission of new crimes. Because the issue was not preserved below, the court reviewed it for plain error and found none.
  2. Harmon's claim that he expected a sentence capped at ten years did not establish that his guilty plea was involuntary or otherwise invalid.
  3. Harmon's voluntary and intelligent guilty plea waived any alleged defect or error occurring before entry of the plea, including his contention that he should have been charged with Driving Under the Influence as a lesser included offense.
  4. Harmon waived his right to challenge the strength of the State's evidence by entering a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary guilty plea, and the record disclosed no plain error.
  5. The Superior Court did not sentence Harmon with a closed mind, and the challenged consecutive sentences and 11 Del. C. § 4204(k) conditions were not erroneous.
  6. Alleged misconduct by an unrelated police officer provided no basis for Harmon to avoid punishment for the serious crimes to which he pleaded guilty.

Key quotations

A judge sentences with a closed mind when the sentence is based on a preconceived bias without consideration of the nature of the offense or the character of the defendant. (at 8)

Factual background

Harmon had multiple prior convictions and probation violations. In March 2015, while allegedly violating probation, he disregarded a police signal, led police on a high-speed chase, and collided with an SUV, killing a passenger. Police apprehended him near the crash and found drugs and $2,000 in the vehicle. Harmon later pleaded guilty to Manslaughter, Reckless Endangering in the First Degree, and Disregarding a Police Officer's Signal, and the Superior Court also adjudicated several probation violations.

Procedural history

Harmon pleaded guilty to Manslaughter, Reckless Endangering in the First Degree, and Disregarding a Police Officer's Signal. The Superior Court sentenced him to a total of thirty-two years of Level V incarceration, suspended after twenty-three years, and imposed additional sentences for violations of probation. Harmon appealed, and the Delaware Supreme Court consolidated the appeals. After reviewing counsel's Rule 26(c) motion, Harmon's pro se claims, the State's response, and the record, the Supreme Court affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…