Opinion
No. 86, 2002
Submitted: July 26, 2002
Decided: August 28, 2002
Court Below — Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for Sussex County Cr.A. No. S96-01-012-01.
Affirmed.
Unpublished opinion is below.
MARK A. DRUMMOND, Defendant Below-Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below-Appellee. No. 86, 2002 In the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. Submitted: July 26, 2002 Decided: August 28, 2002
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and STEELE, Justices.
ORDER
E. NORMAN VEASEY, Chief Justice.
This 28th day of August 2002, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal and the record below, it appears to the Court that:
(1) The defendant-appellant, Mark A. Drummond, filed this appeal from the Superior Court's corrected sentencing order dated January 25, 2002. We find no merit to the appeal. Accordingly, we AFFIRM.
(2) In this appeal, Drummond claims that the Superior Court erred when it corrected his sentence on January 25, 2002 because it did not include in that sentence a 6-month probationary transition period, as mandated by statute.
DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11 Del. C. § 4204(l) (2001).
(3) In March 1996, Drummond pleaded guilty in Sussex County Superior Court to a charge of Escape After Conviction. He was declared an habitual offender. In July 1996 the Superior Court sentenced Drummond to 15 years incarceration at Level V, to be suspended after 8 years and completion of the New Hope Program for 18 months at Level III, followed by 5 years at Level II. In October 1996, Drummond pleaded guilty to additional criminal charges in New Castle County Superior Court. He was sentenced to a total of 27 years incarceration at Level V, to be followed by 6 months at Level IV work release, then 4 years and 6 months at Level III probation.
(4) On January 25, 2002, the Sussex County Superior Court corrected Drummond's March 1996 sentence by reducing it to 8 years incarceration at Level V. The hearing transcript reflects that the Sussex County Superior Court did not add a 6-month probationary transition period because Drummond had been sentenced by the New Castle County Superior Court in October 1996 to a lengthy Level V sentence and a lengthy period of probation that was substantially in excess of the mandatory 6-month period. Drummond did not object to the sentence imposed at the January 25, 2002 sentencing hearing.
The Superior Court determined that a correction was necessary because a portion of Drummond's original sentence had been suspended for probation in violation of the habitual offender statute. DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11 Del. C. § 4214(a) (2001).
(5) There was no plain error in the Superior Court's corrected sentence. The purpose of the 6-month probationary transition period is to assure that no incarcerated individual is returned directly to the community without any transition or follow-up supervision. Under the probationary portion of the sentence imposed by the New Castle County Superior Court, Drummond will serve substantially more than 6 months probation after he completes his consecutive terms of Level V incarceration, thereby fulfilling the statutory requirements.
SUPR. CT. R. 8.
Nave v. State, 783 A.2d 120, 122 (Del. 2001).
Faircloth v. State, 522 A.2d 1268, 1272 (Del. 1987).
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.