Case Title: Vincent v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 61, 2013

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2013-08-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JOSEPH VINCENT, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 61, 2013 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr. ID Nos. 0401018644 
§  and 1011014610 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: August 15, 2013 
 
 
 
 
Decided:  August 29, 2013 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 29th day of August 2013, upon consideration of the parties’ 
briefs, their supplemental submissions,1 and the record below, it appears to 
the Court that: 
(1) The appellant, Joseph Vincent, appeals from his Superior Court 
sentence for a violation of probation (“VOP”).  Vincent’s sole issue on 
appeal is that his sentence violates double jeopardy principles.  We find no 
                                                 
1 The Court requested supplemental filings regarding the expiration date applicable to the 
sentence in Cr. ID No. 0401018644.  The State supplemented the record with evidence of 
other sentencing orders imposed upon Vincent for prior crimes, which affected the 
expiration date of his sentence in Cr. ID No. 0401018644.  
 
2
merit to his contention.  Accordingly, we affirm the Superior Court’s 
judgment.  
(2) Vincent pled guilty in 2004 to one count of Driving Under the 
Influence (“DUI”) Fourth Offense.  In February 2009, Vincent was charged 
with violating his probation associated with that sentence.  The Superior 
Court sentenced Vincent on the VOP to four years at Level V to be 
suspended after serving two years for a period of probation.  In February 
2011, Vincent pled guilty to DUI Fifth Offense.  The Superior Court 
sentenced him on the new conviction to five years at Level V incarceration 
to be suspended after serving two years for a period of probation.  As a 
result of his new conviction, Vincent was also found guilty of violating the 
probation associated with his DUI Fourth Offense.  The Superior Court 
sentenced him on the VOP to two years at Level V incarceration to be 
suspended immediately for probation. 
(3) In February 2013, Vincent was charged with violating probation 
on both his DUI Fourth Offense and DUI Fifth Offense sentences.  The 
Superior Court found Vincent guilty of both VOP charges.  For the VOP 
associated with Vincent’s DUI Fourth Offense, the Superior Court sentenced 
him to two years (with credit for time served) at Level V incarceration with 
no probation to follow.  For the VOP associated with Vincent’s DUI Fifth 
 
3
Offense, the Superior Court sentenced him to two years and six months at 
Level V incarceration, to be suspended after serving six months for two 
years at Level III probation.  This appeal followed. 
(4) In his opening brief on appeal, Vincent contends that when he 
originally pled guilty to his DUI Fifth Offense, his plea agreement resolved 
the VOP charge for his DUI Fourth Offense and provided that he would 
serve one day at Level V incarceration with no probation to follow.  In 
support of this argument, Vincent attaches status sheets from the Department 
of Correction, which credit Vincent with one day served at Level V on the 
VOP associated with his DUI Fourth Offense.  Thus, Vincent argues that the 
subsequent sentencing orders relating to his DUI Fourth Offense violate 
double jeopardy principles because he had already completed serving that 
sentence. 
(5) The record, however, shows that Vincent’s contention is factually 
incorrect.  The plea agreement associated with his February 2011 guilty plea 
reflects, in relevant part, that in exchange for Vincent’s agreement to plead 
guilty to the VOP associated with his DUI Fourth Offense, the State would 
recommend a sentence of three years at Level V incarceration, to be 
suspended entirely for one year of probation.  The record further reflects 
that, on February 25, 2011, the Superior Court actually sentenced Vincent on 
 
4
that VOP to two years at Level V incarceration to be suspended entirely for 
eighteen months of probation.  To the extent that Vincent contends that the 
plea colloquy reflects a different agreement than the written plea agreement, 
he has failed to supply the Court with a copy of the transcript of that 
proceeding.2  We thus are unable to review that claim.  Accordingly, based 
on the record before us, we find no merit to Vincent’s contention that his 
February 2013 sentence violated double jeopardy principles because he had 
completed serving the sentence associated with his conviction for DUI 
Fourth Offense. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs 
 
 
 
 
 
 
       Justice 
                                                 
2 Tricoche v. State, 525 A.2d 151, 154 (Del. 1987).