Opinion
January 6, 1999.
Court Below — Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County Cr.A. No. 97-04-0811, 0812 and 0814.
AFFIRMED.
Unpublished Opinion is below.
HASSAN A. MUHAMMAD, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. In the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. Submitted: December 10, 1998. Decided: January 6, 1999.
Court Below — Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County Cr.A. No. 97-04-0811, 0812 and 0814.
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and HOLLAND, Justices.
ORDER
This 6th day of January, 1999, it appears to the Court that:
1) This is an appeal by the defendant-appellant, Hassan A. Muhammad ("Muhammad"), from a final judgment of the Superior Court. The Superior Court held a hearing to determine whether Muhammad had violated the terms of his probation. The Superior Court concluded that Muhammad had violated his probation and revised the conditions of Muhammad's confinement.
2) In 1997, Muhammad was charged with trafficking in cocaine, delivery of cocaine, distribution of cocaine within three hundred feet of a park, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, carrying a concealed deadly weapon and receiving a stolen firearm.
3) On September 29, 1997, Muhammad pled guilty to delivery of cocaine, distribution of cocaine within three hundred feet of a park and carrying a concealed deadly weapon. The remaining charges were nolle prossed by the State. Muhammad was sentenced to four years incarceration, suspended for one year of home confinement at level 4 supervision, followed by probation. Muhammad did not appeal his conviction or sentence.
4) In March 1998, the Department of Corrections' monitoring equipment indicated that Muhammad had violated the curfew provision of his level 4 home confinement supervision. A violation of probation hearing was held in the Superior Court during which Muhammad was represented by counsel. Muhammad's probation officer testified that, although Muhammad had violated the terms of his home confinement, he otherwise had a good record as a probationer. Muhammad denied the alleged violation of his curfew.
5) The Superior Court made a factual finding that Muhammad had violated his curfew. It reinstated a portion of Muhammad's sentence of incarceration. However, based upon the testimony of Muhammad's probation officer, the Superior Court also told Muhammad that "it seems that you are doing everything you can with respect to improving your life and moving forward." Accordingly, the Superior Court suspended the period of incarceration it had reinstated for probation at level 2 supervision rather than level 4. Consequently, the result of the probation violation hearing was that the Superior Court released Muhammad from home confinement and placed him at a lower level of supervised
6) The Superior Court has broad discretion to terminate a sentence of probation at any time and reinstate a suspended sentence of incarceration. Williams v. State, Del. Supr., 560 A.2d 1012, 1015 (1989); 11 Del. C. § 4301, 4333. See also Jones v. State, Del. Supr., 560 A.2d 1056, 1058 (1989). Having determined that Muhammad had violated his probation, the Superior Court then exercised its discretion to determine what the effect should be on Muhammad's sentence. The Superior Court concluded that, despite the violation, Muhammad's behavior at level 4 confinement warranted a reduction of supervision, to level 2 probation.
7) Although the Superior Court found that Muhammad had violated his curfew, it imposed a sentence modification that was beneficial to Muhammad. This Court has determined that: to the extent the issues raised on appeal are factual, the record evidence supports the trial judge's factual findings; to the extent the errors alleged on appeal are attributed to an abuse of discretion, the record does not support those assertions; and to the extent that the issues raised on appeal are legal, they are controlled by settled Delaware law, which was properly applied.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court be, and the same hereby is, AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Randy J. Holland, Justice