Opinion
Case No. 1911014263
05-08-2020
State of Delaware Petitioner, v. M D Respondent.
M D , Defendant, represented by Charles Tate, Esquire State of Delaware, Petitioner, represented by Francis Mieczkowski, Esquire (DAG)
ORDER ON MOTION TO REVIEW SENTENCE
M D , Defendant, represented by Charles Tate, Esquire
State of Delaware, Petitioner, represented by Francis Mieczkowski, Esquire (DAG) Kerr, F.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On November 23, 2019, M D ("Respondent") was arrested in this case and detained in the New Castle County Detention Center ("NCCDC") in lieu of bail. Subsequently, on November 25, 2019, the Court held a bail review hearing and Respondent was detained in lieu of bail at Vision Quest, a Residential Alternative to Detention ("RAD"). Respondent entered a plea of delinquent to the charges of Possession of a Firearm by a Person Prohibited and Assault Third Degree on February 11, 2020. Although the firearm charge carries a minimum sentence of six (6) months, Respondent's counsel requested deferred sentencing so that the Department of Services for Children You and their Families- Youth Rehabilitative Services ("YRS") could complete an MPACT assessment to determine if the sentence could be served at a Level IV placement. YRS performed the assessment to determine Respondent's criminogenic needs and level of risk of reoffending. YRS recommended that Respondent serve his six month confinement term at Mowlds Cottage, which is a Level IV YRS facility. Respondent was deemed a low risk to reoffend, as, among other reasons, this was his first charge and he had significant family support. Respondent remained at the RAD until he was sentenced to a 6-month minimum sentence at Mowlds Cottage on February 25, 2020. At the sentencing hearing, the Court indicated that there would be a sentence review held on May 5, 2020 as Mowlds programming is approximately 3 months, and the sentence is for 6 months.
Prior to the May 5, 2020 sentence review hearing, defense counsel filed a Motion to Review the Sentence. Respondent argues that he should be given credit for the time he served at the NCCDC and the RAD toward his six-month minimum sentence. Respondent argues that the RAD serves the same purpose as a Level V facility such as the NCCDC as it is a place of residential confinement from which he could not leave. Respondent cites State v. Grooms, 1993 WL 777363 (Del. Fam. 1993), which holds that juveniles are eligible to receive credit for time they are detained prior to adjudication toward a mandatory sentence. The State does not oppose the two days spent at the NCCDC but opposes the request for credit for the time spent at the RAD. According to the State, the RAD is the equivalent of a Level IV facility and that there is no case law or statute to support Respondent's argument that time served at a Level IV facility was contemplated in 11 Del. C. §1448(f)(1). The prosecution cites three statutes and three cases to support the position that such credit was not contemplated by the legislature in enacting and modifying 11 Del. C. §1448(f) and no Court has analyzed the applicable statutes to permit this credit.
The NCCDC qualifies as a Level V facility. See Oakley v. State, 2008 WL 836598, *2 (Del. 2008).
Gamble v. State, 728 A.2d 1171(Del. 1999); Anderson v. State, 2006 WL 3931460 (Del. 2006); Oakley v. State, 2008 WL 836598 (Del. 2008).
The Court scheduled a hearing on any factual issues to take place on May 19, 2020 if the Court determines that there is not a legal bar to considering Respondent's stay at the RAD toward his credit for time served on the 6-month minimum sentence. Respondent requested time to respond to the State's legal authorities and the Response was due May 13, 2020. The Court however has determined that no response is necessary.
ANALYSIS
The State argues that the legislature did not contemplate credit for time served at a RAD and that the plain language of the cited statutes supports this assertion. The State cites that 10 Del. C. §1007(c) differentiates "secure detention" from any other hold or bail condition and the very description of Vision Quest as an "alternative to detention" suggests that it was not contemplated as secure detention. 10 Del. C. §1007(c) refers to options pending adjudication, preferable to secured detention at the NCCDC, which can include:
5) Release to a nonsecure detention alternative developed by the Department of Services for Children, Youth and Their Families such as home detention, daily monitoring, intensive home base services with supervision, foster placement, or a nonsecure residential setting.
The State also references 10 Del. C. §928(h), which is part of the chapter on the jurisdiction of Family Court and defines Level IV and Level V facilities in the context of juvenile delinquency. Subsection (1) defines a "facility" as "any treatment center, institution or other place designated for confinement." The statute explains the differences between Level IV and Level V secured hold. Level IV can include a halfway-house, residential treatment facility or restitution facility. It can also include house arrest at the juvenile's home, a group home, foster home and other places of "partial confinement". Level V is described as "confinement in a secured facility."
Neither side cited any case law specifically on point regarding the issue of whether time spent pretrial in a RAD can be considered toward time-served on a minimum sentence at Level IV or Level V. The cases provided by both counsel address the well-established principle that the Court can give credit for time served at a secured detention facility. The Grooms case cited by Respondent also cites the general proposition that the juvenile justice system seeks to address the rehabilitative needs of the juvenile and that the intention is not punishment but rehabilitation. The Court notes that typically the minimum or mandatory sentencing orders will allow credit for time served pre-adjudication at the detention center, provided the juvenile successfully completes the required programming at the Level V, or Level IV, facility. Thus, if the programs at Delaware's Level V facility, the Ferris School ("Ferris"), are successfully completed before the end of a mandatory six-month sentence, the parties agree that credit from pretrial detention at NCCDC can be given and the juvenile can be released without necessarily spending the full six months at Ferris. Additionally, 11 Del. C. §1448(f)(1) describes the six month minimum sentence as "mandated institutional treatment" but also states that:
Gamble v. State, 728 A. 2d 1171 (Del. 1999)(adult offender); Oakley v. State, 2008 WL 836598 (Del. 2006) (juvenile offender with split plea in Family and Superior Courts); State v. Grooms, 1993 WL 777363 (Del. Fam. 1993) (juvenile offender).
Or Stevenson House, which is used for pretrial detention in Kent and Sussex Counties
Likewise the stay can be longer than six months if the programs are not completed within the 6 months.
"the penalties (emphasis added) prescribed by this section and subsection (g) of this section shall be imposed regardless of whether or not the juvenile is determined to be amenable to the rehabilitative process of the Family Court."This language supports the State's contention that despite the cases which cite the rehabilitative goals of juvenile detention, there is also a mandate for the juvenile to "ride out" the six month sentence if the programming is completed at an earlier date.
In Anderson v. State, 2006 WL 836598 (Del. 2008), the Delaware Supreme Court reviewed a somewhat comparable situation involving an adult offender who spent time in a VOP Center. In Anderson, the Defendant was originally sentenced to Level V for 4 months, followed by 6 months at Level IV. After 4 months at Level V, Defendant was not able to be transferred to either of the programs at Level IV, work release or home confinement, as there was no space in either of these programs. Defendant was therefore transferred to the VOP Center where he stayed for the 6 months and was then released for probation. Anderson later violated his probation and was sentenced to 4 years at Level V suspended after 1 year for 3 years at Level III. The Superior Court ruled that Anderson was not entitled to credit for the time spent at the VOP Center toward the 1 year as it was a Level IV facility. The Supreme Court reversed stating "inmates should receive Level V credit for time served at a VOP Center because that facility, while classified as Level IV, is as restrictive as Level V incarceration". The Court found that the VOP Center was substantially more restrictive than other Level IV Options. Interestingly, in Anderson, the defendant was given credit for serving time at a Level IV facility toward a Level V sentence. In the present case, the Respondent is seeking credit for time served at the equivalent of a Level IV facility toward a Level IV sentence.
As set forth above, §928(h) contains a number of options for adjudicated juveniles at Level IV which include facilities such as Mowlds, half-way houses, residential treatment facilities, and home confinement at the juvenile's family home, a DSCYF group home or a foster home. These options offer varied levels of restrictiveness.
§928(h)(1) describes a "facility" to include a treatment center, institution or other place designated for confinement.
The Court notes that 11 Del. C. §1448(f)(1) states that the child shall receive a minimum of six months of Level V incarceration or "institutional confinement". The parties agree that "institutional confinement" can include confinement at a Level IV facility and in fact if the Court denies the Motion to give credit for time served, the remaining time would be served at Mowlds, which is Level IV. The Court therefore questions what difference it makes if the time is served before versus after the formal programming. The statute itself does not discuss time served and does not define "institutional confinement." Therefore, the Court determines that the initial question is whether Vision Quest's restrictions are comparable to a Level IV Program like Mowlds such that Vision Quest is connsidered "institutional confinement." If the answer is in the affirmative, the next inquiry is whether there were rehabilitative services provided at the RAD and how those services compare to any services provided at Mowlds following completion of the programming.
CONCLUSION
Given that the goals of the minimum sentence are two-fold: to serve the full 6 months and to rehabilitate the juvenile, the Court finds that there are factual issues which will require a further hearing. Respondent may receive credit for time served at Vision Quest if the Court finds that the RAD had sufficient restrictions to make it comparable to Level V detention or Level IV confinement such as Mowlds, and if Respondent received rehabilitative services while at the RAD. If he did not receive rehabilitative services, the Court would also consider if he would receive further rehabilitative services while at Mowlds and if the time spent before adjudication would be substantially different from the time spent after completing the Mowlds program.
Such as NCCDC or Stevenson House --------
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/_________
Felice Glennon Kerr, Judge FGK/fgk
Cc: Charles Tate, Esquire
Francis Miieczkowski, Esquire, DAG Date mailed: