Case Title: Potter v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 55, 2011

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2011-09-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JOSEPH POTTER, 
 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 55, 2011 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 0910007133 
§   
§   
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: July 27, 2011 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: September 27, 2011 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 27th day of September 2011, 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, Joseph Potter, filed this appeal from the 
Superior Court’s order sentencing Potter for a violation of probation (VOP).  The 
State of Delaware has filed a motion to affirm the judgment below on the ground 
that it is manifest on the face of Potter’s opening brief that his appeal is without 
merit.  We agree and affirm. 
 
(2) 
The record reflects that, at the time of his arrest in December 2010, 
Potter already was serving multiple probationary sentences resulting from three 
 
2
prior guilty pleas.  In March 2009, Potter had pled guilty to one count of theft of a 
motor vehicle and was sentenced on June 26, 2009 to two years at Level V 
imprisonment to be suspended entirely for probation.  In December 2009, Potter 
had pled guilty to theft and conspiracy.  The Superior Court sentenced him on 
April 30, 2010 on each conviction to two years at Level V incarceration to be 
suspended for one year of probation.  In June 2010, Potter pled guilty to charges of 
aggravated menacing and resisting arrest.  On the aggravated menacing charge, the 
Superior Court sentenced him, effective April 30, 2010, to four years at Level V 
incarceration to be suspended for four years at Level IV (home confinement or 
work release), to be suspended after serving six months at Level IV for one year at 
Level III probation.  On the resisting arrest charge, the Superior Court sentenced 
Potter to two years at Level V incarceration to be suspended for one year at Level 
III probation.  
 
(3) 
Following his release from custody on his most recent sentence, Potter 
was returned to the State of Pennsylvania to complete serving a sentence there.  
Upon his release from Pennsylvania custody, Potter was informed that he had to 
report to his Delaware probation supervisor for processing the next day, which was 
October 14, 2010.  Potter failed to report.  He remained at large until December 11, 
2010 when he was involved in a motor vehicle accident and arrested on charges 
relating to the accident.  Potter was charged with violating probation for his failure 
 
3
to report, and a hearing was held on January 14, 2011.  Potter, who was 
represented by counsel at the hearing, admitted that he had failed to report but 
argued that his failure to report was due to a misunderstanding.  The Superior 
Court found Potter in violation of his probation and sentenced him on the 
aggravated menacing charge to four years at Level V incarceration (Key Program), 
with credit for 32 days served, to be suspended upon successful completion of Key 
for the balance at Level IV Crest Program, to be suspended upon successful 
completion of Crest for one year at Level III probation (Crest Aftercare).  On the 
resisting arrest charge, the Superior Court sentenced Potter to two years at Level V 
incarceration to be suspended for one year at Level III probation.  On the theft 
charge, the Superior Court sentence Potter to eighteen months at Level V 
incarceration to be suspended for one year at Level III probation.  The Superior 
Court discharged Potter as unimproved from any further probation on his 
conspiracy and theft of a motor vehicle sentences.  This appeal followed. 
 
(4) 
In his opening brief on appeal, Potter contends that his sentence was 
excessive under the SENTAC guidelines.  He also contends that he was denied due 
process at his VOP hearing.  We find no merit to either argument.  
 
(5) 
This Court’s appellate review of a sentence is extremely limited.  Our 
review generally ends upon a determination that the sentence is within the statutory 
 
4
limits prescribed by the legislature.1  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.2  In 
this case, Potter had only served 32 days in prison on his five original sentences.  
Accordingly, there were nearly twelve years not served on the original sentences, 
which the Superior Court could have reimposed after finding Potter had violated 
his probation.  Instead, the Superior Court only sentenced Potter to four years at 
Level V incarceration to be suspended upon his successful completion of the Key 
Program for decreasing levels of supervision.  The sentence imposed by the 
Superior Court was authorized by law, and we conclude that it was neither 
arbitrary nor excessive.  
 
(6) 
Furthermore, we find Potter’s contention that he was denied due 
process at the VOP hearing to be completely unsupported by the record.  Potter, 
through his appointed counsel, admitted that he had failed to report to his Delaware 
probation supervisor as he was ordered to do.  Moreover, contrary to Potter’s 
contention, the Superior Court unequivocally informed Potter that it was not 
considering his latest criminal charges (relating to the 2010 motor vehicle accident) 
as a basis for violating his probation.  Potter was given the opportunity to address 
the court and present a defense.  The Superior Court simply did not accept Potter’s 
                                                 
1 Mayes v. State, 604 A.2d 839, 842 (Del. 1992). 
2 11 Del. C. § 4334(c). 
 
5
explanation that his failure to report was the result of a misunderstanding.  Under 
the circumstances, we find no merit to Potter’s due process claim.  
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT:  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice