Case Title: Richardson v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 405, 2005

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2005-12-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DEVEN M. RICHARDSON, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 405, 2005 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 9507000865  
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:  October 21, 2005 
 
 
 
 
Decided:  December 16, 2005 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, BERGER, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 16th day of December 2005, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief, the State’s motion to affirm, and the record below, it appears 
to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Deven Richardson, filed this appeal 
from the Superior Court’s denial of his motion for correction of sentence.  
The State of Delaware has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment 
on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Richardson’s opening brief 
that the appeal is without merit.  We agree and affirm. 
(2) 
The record reflects that Richardson pled guilty in May 1996 to 
one count of third degree unlawful sexual intercourse and three counts of 
 
2
third degree unlawful sexual penetration. The Superior Court sentenced him 
to nine and a half years at Level V imprisonment, to be suspended after 
serving five years for decreasing levels of supervision.  In May 2004, while 
still serving the probationary portion of his sentence, Richardson was 
arrested on new criminal charges.  After his arrest but before his trial, 
Richardson also was charged with a violation of his 1996 probation as a 
result of the new criminal charges against him.  In September 2004, the 
Superior Court found Richardson in violation of his 1996 probation because 
of the new charges and sentenced him to four years at Level V 
imprisonment.1  In May 2005, Richardson filed a motion for correction of 
sentence asserting that the Superior Court should not have sentenced him on 
the VOP charge to more than two years.  The Superior Court denied the 
motion, and this appeal followed. 
(3) 
Richardson’s argument is grounded in a 2003 amendment to 11 
Del. C. § 4333, known as Senate Bill 50, which limits the period of 
probation that the trial court may impose for sentences imposed after June 1, 
2003.  Richardson, however, was originally sentenced to probation in 1996, 
well before the adoption of the amendment.  The amendment does not apply 
                                                 
1 Richardson subsequently was tried and convicted in January 2005 of three 
counts of third degree rape, one count of fourth degree rape, and three counts of unlawful 
sexual contact.  The Superior Court sentenced him to twenty years imprisonment 
followed by probation. 
 
3
retroactively to Richardson’s sentence.2 Moreover, to the extent Richardson 
is claiming that the Superior Court should have credited him with the time 
he previously had served on probation, we find no merit to this contention.  
Upon finding Richardson in violation of his probation, the Superior Court 
was authorized to reimpose the full amount of the suspended portion of his 
original sentence, giving credit only for time served at Level V 
incarceration.3  Richardson was not entitled to any credit for time he 
previously spent on probation.4   
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
 
                                                 
2 Sewell v. State, 2003 WL 22839962 (Del. Nov. 26, 2003). 
3 Gamble v. State, 728 A.2d 1171, 1172 (Del. 1999). 
4 Shepherd v. State, 1996 WL 585904 (Del. Oct. 1, 1996).