Case Title: Person v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 453, 2012

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2012-10-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JAMES A. PERSON, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 453, 2012 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID Nos. 1104001526,  
§  1104002084, and 1101001874 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: September 5, 2012 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: October 10, 2012 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 10th day of October 2012, 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, James Person, filed this appeal from 
the Superior Court’s order, dated July 17, 2012, denying his motion for 
reconsideration of a prior order denying his motion for credit for time 
served.  The State of Delaware has a filed a motion to affirm the judgment 
below on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Person’s opening brief 
that his appeal is without merit.  After review of the record, we find that 
Person is entitled to credit for all time he served in prison awaiting 
 
2
resolution of his present VOP charges.  Accordingly, we remand this matter 
to the Superior Court for further proceedings.  
 
(2) 
The record reflects that Person pled guilty in the Court of 
Common Pleas on April 13, 2011 to one count of Shoplifting.  The Court of 
Common Pleas sentenced him to one year at Level V incarceration to be 
suspended immediately for probation.  The following day, Person pled guilty 
in the Superior Court to Robbery in the Second Degree and Tampering with 
Physical Evidence, which had been charged in two separate indictments.1  
The Superior Court sentenced him to total period of three years at Level V 
incarceration, with credit for twelve days served, to be suspended 
immediately for one year at Level IV Crest, followed by Crest Aftercare and 
probation. 
 
(3) 
In February 2012, Person was arrested on a charge of violating 
the terms of his Court of Common Pleas (CCP) probation.  As a result of 
that arrest, Person also was charged with violating the terms of his Superior 
Court probation.  The cases were consolidated pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 
4333(h). On March 16, 2012, the Superior Court held a hearing on the 
consolidated charges and found that Person had violated his probation.  
Person was sentenced to serve a total period of eight months at Level V 
                                                 
1 The criminal case numbers associated with those charges are 1104001526 and 
1104002084, respectively. 
 
3
incarceration with no probation to follow.  Person did not appeal the VOP 
adjudication or sentence. 
 
(4) 
On May 21, 2012, Person filed a motion seeking credit for time 
he served in jail from February 13, 2012 to March 2, 2012 (the effective date 
of his VOP sentence).  The Superior Court denied Person’s motion for credit 
time on the ground that Person had been held during that time period on the 
charge of violating his CCP probationary sentence.  Thus, he was not 
entitled to credit time against his Superior Court VOP sentence.  Person filed 
a motion for reconsideration, which the Superior Court denied.  This appeal 
followed. 
 
(5) 
A defendant is entitled to Level V credit for all time served at 
Level V incarceration.2  In this case, Person initially was incarcerated for a 
VOP associated with his CCP sentence.  Once the CCP VOP charge was 
consolidated with the Superior Court VOP charge, the Superior Court should 
have credited Person with all time served at Level V awaiting disposition of 
the consolidated VOP charges.  We reject the State’s contention that the 
Superior Court must have intended Person’s incarceration from February 13 
to March 2 to be the sentence for Person’s VOP associated with his CCP 
sentence.  The Superior Court’s sentencing order does not reflect such an 
                                                 
2 DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 3901(b) (2007). 
 
4
intention.  In fact, the Superior Court’s sentencing order does not reflect that 
Person was given credit toward any sentence for the time he spent at Level 
V awaiting the disposition of his consolidated VOP charges.3  Accordingly, 
this matter must be remanded to the Superior Court for the issuance of a new 
sentencing order that gives Person credit for the time he spent in jail from 
February 13 to March 2. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that this matter is 
REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this Order.  
Jurisdiction is not retained. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                                 
3 See Oakley v. State, 2008 WL 836598 (Del. Mar. 31, 2008).