Case Title: McDougal v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 461, 2018

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2018-12-31T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ANDRE McDOUGAL,  
 
§  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 461, 2018 
 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below:  Superior Court  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware  
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
Cr. ID No. 0607023450 (N) 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 Submitted:  October 1, 2018 
Decided:  December 31, 2018 
 
Before VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
(1) 
Andre McDougal filed this appeal from the Superior Court’s order 
dated August 21, 2018, denying his motion for correction of a sentence imposed on 
March 2, 2011 for a violation of probation (“VOP”).  McDougal claims that he is 
entitled to relief from the VOP sentence because he did not receive due process at 
the VOP hearing.1  The State has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment on 
                                          
 
1 This is not the first time McDougal has claimed that he was denied due process at the VOP 
hearing.  See McDougal v. State, 2011 WL 4921345, at *2 (Del. Oct. 17, 2011) (affirming VOP 
conviction on direct appeal); McDougal v. Wesley, 2014 WL 6693787, at *3–4 (D. Del. Nov. 24, 
2014) (denying federal habeas corpus petition); State v. McDougal, 2015 WL 3883058, at *6–7 
(Del. Super. Comm’r June 22, 2015) (recommending summary dismissal of motion for 
postconviction relief) adopted by State v. McDougal, Cr. ID No. 0607023450 (Del. Super. Oct. 2, 
2015). 
   
2 
 
the ground that it is manifest on the face of McDougal’s opening brief that the appeal 
is without merit.2  We agree and affirm. 
 
(2) 
Superior Court Criminal Rule 35 governs motions seeking the 
correction of an illegal sentence and motions seeking relief from a sentence imposed 
in an illegal manner.3  In this case, the transcript of McDougal’s sentencing reveals 
no illegality.  Contrary to McDougal’s claims on appeal, when imposing sentence 
for the VOP, the Superior Court properly considered the seriousness of the 
underlying offense for which McDougal was originally convicted and the 
seriousness of the charges for which McDougal was arrested and awaiting trial.4     
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is 
GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/  James T. Vaughn, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice  
 
                                          
 
2 Del. Sup. Ct. R. 25(a). 
3 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(a), (b). 
4 See Diaz v. State, 2014 WL 1017490 (Del. Mar. 13, 2014) (affirming judgment after finding no 
illegality in a VOP sentence imposing the balance of Level V remaining on the defendant’s original 
sentence when the sentencing judge noted the seriousness of the underlying offenses for which the 
defendant was originally convicted and the seriousness of the subsequent crime for which the 
defendant was charged).