The Delaware Supreme Court has affirmed the eight-year prison sentence of Steven Anderson, who pleaded no contest to first-degree unlawful sexual contact with a nine-year-old child. Despite acknowledging a mistake by the Superior Court in applying a sentencing guideline, the Supreme Court ruled the error was “harmless” because the trial court had other valid reasons for the sentence.
The Incident and Plea
The case stemmed from an incident at a farm in Townsend, Delaware, where Anderson, a farm employee, encountered the child, identified as B.M., who was visiting her relative. Anderson told B.M. she was “a pretty girl” and asked for a hug. He then placed his hand on her right buttock, which made her uncomfortable.
Anderson pleaded no contest to the charges. As part of the plea agreement, the state agreed to recommend a sentence no longer than five years. The maximum penalty for the offense was eight years at Level V. During the plea hearing, Anderson confirmed his understanding of the agreement.
Sentencing Hearing
At the sentencing hearing on November 22, 2024, the state recommended a five-year prison sentence. They cited Anderson’s “uniquely poor judgment and lack of boundaries,” his drinking at the time of the offense, the victim’s young age, and Anderson’s prior conviction for third-degree rape. The state also mentioned the need for “correctional treatment,” Anderson’s “self-admitted substance abuse,” and his “other mental health issues [that] could be addressed in confinement.”
B.M.’s mother read a victim-impact statement written by B.M., which detailed the emotional and psychological impact of the incident. B.M. expressed feeling pressured to hug Anderson, and then “froze in fear when he grabbed [her] privates.” She described experiencing discomfort, fear, nervousness, nausea, and shame after the incident. She lost interest in activities, had trouble focusing in school, and entered counseling. B.M. also expressed feeling disgusted when Anderson denied the incident and said she would feel safer if he received the maximum sentence.
Defense counsel highlighted that Anderson’s prior offense was 20 years old and that he had lived on the farm for a decade without new charges. Counsel acknowledged Anderson’s substance use disorder. They disagreed with the state’s reliance on the “repetitive criminal conduct” aggravating factor, emphasizing the age of his prior offense.
The Superior Court sentenced Anderson to eight years at Level V, suspended after five years for two years at Level III. The court cited several aggravating factors: repetitive criminal conduct, the need for correctional treatment, and, most significantly, the offense against a young child. The sentence included no contact with B.M. or unsupervised minors, substance-abuse evaluation, mental-health evaluation, and sex-offender counseling.
The Appeal
Anderson appealed the sentence, arguing the trial court erred by using the “repetitive criminal conduct” aggravating factor. He pointed out that SENTAC (Sentencing Accountability Commission) defines “repetitive” criminal history as a “conviction or adjudication for the same or similar offense on two or more occasions,” and he only had one prior conviction. The state conceded in its answering brief that the Superior Court “misapplied the SENTAC factor regarding repetitive criminal conduct.”
The Supreme Court’s review of sentences that fall within the statutory limits is “extremely limited.” It focuses on whether the trial court abused its discretion, which happens when the sentence is based on false information, judicial bias, or a closed mind.
The Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court found that the trial court did misapply the SENTAC guidelines regarding repetitive criminal conduct. However, the court ultimately determined that the error was harmless. The court emphasized that the sentencing judge articulated its reasons for the sentence, as required by law.
The Supreme Court cited its previous rulings in similar cases (Haas v. State and Cooling v. State) where a misapplication of one aggravating factor was considered harmless if the sentencing judge relied on other factors to justify the sentence. In this case, the court noted the victim’s young age and Anderson’s need for correctional treatment as key factors in the sentencing decision, which were valid and not disputed by Anderson.
The court also noted that the Delaware General Assembly has not empowered the SENTAC guidelines in a way that would require a sentence reversal solely because of a deviation from a SENTAC definition. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s decision.