An Open Mind To A Rotten Soul

The Delaware Supreme Court declined to entertain reconsideration of a lengthy prison sentence notwithstanding remarks made by the sentencing judge

Although the court’s conjecture concerning the state of Gingerich’s soul could be viewed as beyond the court’s purview, we are satisfied that its sentence was the product of a thoughtful consideration of the evidence, including the mitigating factors. In short, Gingerich has failed to demonstrate that the Superior Court sentenced him with a closed mind. 

The case

Darren Gingerich seeks review of his sentence for kidnapping in the second degree, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (“PFDCF”), arson in the second degree, and three counts of rape in the third degree. After Gingerich entered guilty pleas to these offenses, the court sentenced him to 123 years of Level V incarceration—the statutory maximum sentence—suspended after 55 years for decreasing levels of supervision. During the sentencing hearing, the court remarked that Gingerich “probably” has “a rotten soul” and that his actions in this case were “simply inhuman, diabolical, [and] demonic.” Gingerich now appeals his sentence, arguing that the court did not have an open mind when sentencing him, and requests a new sentencing hearing with a different judicial officer. For the reasons explained below, we affirm.

The court

Here, Gingerich concedes that the Superior Court’s sentence fell within the statutory limits. Gingerich’s argument on appeal is that the Superior Court  sentenced him with a closed mind. The court’s closed-mindedness, Gingerich argues, is evidenced by the court’s remarks that Gingerich “probably” has a “rotten soul” and that his actions in this case were “simply inhuman, demonic, [and] diabolical.” Gingerich claims that, because the court had a closed mind, it never seriously considered the mitigating evidence presented by defense counsel at the sentencing hearing.

A trial 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.” It is “not improper for a sentencing judge to mount the bench with some preconceived notion about the proper sentence to be imposed.” During sentencing, the trial court must “have an open mind for receiving all information related to the question of mitigation.”

Our review of the sentencing record convinces us that the court did not sentence Gingerich with a closed mind or abuse its discretion. After making its initial remarks, the court gave a detailed account of the case. It considered the underlying facts, the victim-impact statements of S.G. and Gingerich’s wife, the The court acknowledged that “somehow” Gingerich had no prior convictions and that was a mitigating factor to consider. In the court’s own words, however, “there [are] numerous — probably more aggravating factors in this case than any other case [it] ha[d] seen.” Specifically, the court found the following aggravating factors applicable to this case: (i) excessive cruelty; (ii) need for correctional treatment; (iii) major economic offense for burning the family’s home; (iv) vulnerability of the victim; (v) child domestic abuse; and (vi) offense against a child.

(Mike Frisch)