Case Title: Cohee v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 256, 2016

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2016-11-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DANIEL COHEE, 
 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 256, 2016 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID 1004008353 
§   
§ 
 
Submitted: September 27, 2016 
Decided:  November  14, 2016 
 
Before VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and SEITZ Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 14th day of November 2016, upon consideration of the 
appellant’s opening brief, the State’s motion to affirm, and the record on 
appeal, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Daniel Cohee, filed this appeal from the Superior 
Court’s order, dated April 29, 2016, denying Cohee’s motion for correction 
of an illegal sentence.  The State of Delaware has filed a motion to affirm 
the judgment below on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Cohee’s 
opening brief that the appeal is without merit.  We agree and affirm. 
(2) 
Cohee pled guilty in September 2010 to one count each of 
Carjacking in the First Degree, Disregarding a Police Officer’s Signal, and 
 
2 
Possession of a Deadly Weapon by a Person Prohibited.  The Superior Court 
sentenced Cohee on all three charges to a total period of nine years at Level 
V incarceration, to be suspended after serving three years in prison for two 
years at decreasing levels of supervision.  Cohee did not appeal.  In February 
2013, Cohee was found in violation of his probation and sentenced to four 
years and three months at Level V incarceration, to be suspended upon 
Cohee’s successful completion of drug treatment for decreasing levels of 
supervision.  Cohee did not appeal that judgment.  In April 2016, Cohee 
filed a motion for correction of sentence, claiming that his VOP sentence 
was illegal.  The Superior Court denied his motion.  This appeal followed. 
(3) 
Cohee argues in his opening brief that his VOP sentence is 
illegal because it violated the SENTAC guidelines.  Cohee also argues that 
his due process rights were violated at his 2013 VOP hearing because he was 
denied the opportunity to be heard and to present evidence in his own 
defense.   
(4) 
We find no merit to Cohee’s appeal.  A motion for correction of 
sentence is very narrow in scope.1  It is not a means to challenge the legality 
of a conviction or to raise allegations of error occurring in the proceedings 
                                                 
1 Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998). 
 
3 
before the imposition of sentence.2  Thus, we reject Cohee’s attempt to 
collaterally attack the validity of his VOP adjudication.   
(5) 
Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a) permits relief when “the 
sentence imposed exceeds the statutorily-authorized limits, [or] violates the 
Double Jeopardy Clause.”3  A sentence also is illegal if it “is ambiguous 
with respect to the time and manner in which it is to be served, is internally 
contradictory, omits a term required to be imposed by statute, is uncertain as 
to the substance of the sentence, or is a sentence which the judgment of 
conviction did not authorize.”4   
(6) 
In sentencing a defendant for a VOP, the trial court is 
authorized to impose any period of incarceration up to and including the 
balance of the Level V time remaining to be served on the original 
sentence.5  In this case, the Superior Court reimposed the Level V time 
remaining from Cohee’s original Carjacking sentence, but ordered it to be 
suspended upon Cohee’s successful completion of a treatment program for 
decreasing levels of supervision.  Under the circumstances, the sentence was 
authorized by law, was neither arbitrary nor excessive, and does not reflect 
                                                 
2 Id. 
3 Id. (quoting United States v. Pavlico, 961 F.2d 440, 443 (4th Cir. 1992)). 
4 Id. (quoting United States v. Dougherty, 106 F.3d 1514, 1515 (10th Cir. 1997)). 
5 11 Del C. § 4334(c) (2015). 
 
4 
any evidence of a closed mind by the sentencing judge.  We find no merit to 
Cohee’s appeal. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/   James T. Vaughn, Jr.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice