Case Title: Guy v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 275, 2006

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2006-10-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
AMIN GUY, 
 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 275, 2006 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID. 9601006647 
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:  August 25, 2006 
Decided:  October 19, 2006 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 19th day of October 2006, upon consideration of the parties’ briefs and 
the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Amin Guy, filed this appeal from the Superior Court’s 
denial of his motion for correction of sentence.  Guy contends that he is entitled to 
be credited with time served for nearly three years he erroneously spent at liberty.  
We find no merit to Guy’s appeal.  Accordingly, we affirm the Superior Court’s 
judgment.  
(2) 
The record reflects that Guy was indicted in 1996 on charges of first 
degree robbery, assault, reckless endangering, conspiracy, and a firearm offense.  
He pled guilty in June 1998 to second degree robbery and the firearm offense.  
 
2
Before the Superior Court sentenced him, Guy was picked up by Pennsylvania 
authorities for violating parole.  He remained incarcerated in Pennsylvania until 
January 2000.  From January 2000 to January 2003, Guy was at liberty.  In January 
2003, he was arrested by federal authorities and sentenced to serve 36 months 
imprisonment.  He completed that sentence in a federal prison in New Jersey and, 
upon completion, was held by New Jersey authorities pending his extradition to 
Delaware for sentencing on his 1998 guilty plea.  On December 16, 2005, the 
Superior Court sentenced Guy to a total mandatory term of three years at Level V 
incarceration.   
(3) 
Guy did not appeal from his 2005 sentencing.  Instead, on February 
24, 2006, he filed a motion for correction or reduction of sentence.  Guy asserted 
that, while he was incarcerated in Pennsylvania for violating parole, he filed a 
petition, pursuant to the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD), requesting 
Delaware authorities to take action on his case.  Guy argued that his erroneous 
release from custody in Pennsylvania, without being returned to Delaware to face 
sentencing, should be attributed to Delaware authorities for their failure to take 
action under the IAD to secure his detention.  Consequently, Guy argues, because 
he was erroneously released from custody and spent three years at liberty, those 
three years should be counted as time served toward his three-year Superior Court 
sentence. 
 
3
(4) 
The Superior Court denied Guy’s motion on two alternative grounds.  
First, there was no record of Guy ever having made a request for Delaware 
authorities to take action under the IAD.  Second, the IAD was inapplicable under 
the circumstances because Guy’s charges in Delaware already had been resolved 
by guilty plea. 
(5) 
We find this decision manifestly correct.  The purpose of the IAD is 
“to encourage the expeditious and orderly disposition of such charges and 
determination of the proper status of any and all detainers based on untried 
indictments, information or complaints”1 in order to avoid speedy trial issues.  The 
IAD does not apply under the current circumstances to Guy, whose charges already 
had been resolved by guilty plea.  Moreover, even if the IAD did apply, there is no 
record that Guy ever properly filed a request with Delaware authorities for final 
disposition of his charges under the IAD. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
                                                 
1 11 Del. C. § 2540.