Horsey v. State

Summary

The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s violation-of-probation sentence imposed on Rayquian Horsey. The Court held that the sentence was within statutory limits and that Horsey identified no impermissible factual basis, judicial vindictiveness or bias, or closed-mindedness warranting appellate relief.

Holdings

1. The VOP sentence was affirmed because it was within the statutory limits and Horsey identified no false, impermissible, or unreliable factual predicate, judicial vindictiveness, bias, or closed judicial mind.
2. Horsey's ineffective-assistance argument lacked merit because Supreme Court Rule 26(l) requires counsel to advise the defendant in writing about the right to appeal, whether counsel will continue representation, and the requirement to file a notice of appeal within thirty days, and the record showed that counsel satisfied those obligations.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Superior Court's violation-of-probation sentence was impermissibly extreme or otherwise subject to appellate correction.
2. Whether Horsey's violation-of-probation counsel failed to satisfy the obligation to advise him regarding his right to appeal and the deadline for filing a notice of appeal.

Disposition

affirmed