Case Title: Wilson v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 168, 2012

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2012-06-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
LARRY F. WILSON,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
         Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 168, 2012 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0905016390 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
                                         Submitted: June 1, 2012 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: June 19, 2012 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 19th day of June 2012, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief and the appellee’s motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 25(a), it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Larry F. Wilson, filed an appeal from 
the Superior Court’s March 5, 2012 order denying his fourth motion for 
correction of illegal sentence pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 
35(a).  The plaintiff-appellee, the State of Delaware, has moved to affirm the 
 
2
Superior Court’s judgment on the ground that it is manifest on the face of 
the opening brief that the appeal is without merit.1  We agree and affirm. 
 
(2) 
The record before us reflects that, in August 2009, Wilson 
entered a no contest plea to the charges of Possession of a Deadly Weapon 
By a Person Prohibited (“PDWPP”) and Carrying a Concealed Deadly 
Weapon (“CCDW”).  The State dismissed 5 additional charges.  Wilson was 
sentenced as a habitual offender on the CCDW conviction to 91 days of 
Level V incarceration, with credit for 91 days previously served, and to 8 
years at Level V, to be suspended for 18 months at Level III probation, on 
the PDWPP conviction. 
 
(3) 
On April 1, 2010, Wilson was found to have committed a 
violation of probation (“VOP”).  He was sentenced on the PDWPP 
conviction to 8 years at Level V, with credit for 9 days served, to be 
suspended for 1 year at Level IV Home Confinement followed by 1 year at 
Level III.  On May 12, 2010, Wilson’s VOP sentence was modified so that 
he could serve his Level IV sentence either on Work Release or Home 
Confinement.  On December 3, 2010, Wilson’s VOP sentence on the 
PDWPP conviction was modified a second time.  He was sentenced to 7 
                                                 
1 Supr. Ct. R. 25(a).  Wilson also filed a motion to expedite on May 18, 2012, to which 
the State has filed a response.  In the motion, Wilson argues that, if his appeal is not 
decided on an expedited basis, he is at risk of serving more Level V time than his 
sentence requires. 
 
3
years and 6 months at Level V, to be suspended for 18 months at Level III.  
The VOP sentencing order reflects that the reduction of Wilson’s VOP 
sentence from 8 to 7 years and 6 months took into account all of the Level V 
time he had served up to that point. 
 
(4) 
On March 8, 2011, Wilson again was found to have committed 
a VOP.  On the PDWPP conviction, he was sentenced to 7 years and 6 
months at Level V, with credit for 23 days previously served, to be 
suspended for 90 days at Level IV Work Release, to be followed by 18 
months at Level II probation.  On September 22, 2011, Wilson was found to 
have committed a third VOP regarding his PDWPP conviction.  On 
November 11, 2011, he was sentenced on PDWPP conviction to 7 years at 
Level V, to be suspended after 1 year for 18 months at Level III and then 
Level II.  The VOP sentencing order notes that the sentence takes into 
consideration all Level V time Wilson had previously served.   
 
(5) 
Between November 2011 and February 2012, Wilson filed four 
motions in the Superior Court requesting that his VOP sentencing order be 
modified.  The Superior Court denied all four motions on the ground that 
Wilson’s sentencing orders had credited him with all the Level V time to 
which he was entitled.   
 
4
 
(6) 
In his appeal from the Superior Court’s denial of his fourth 
motion for correction of sentence, Wilson claims that, while his sentence is 
not “illegal,” the effective date of the sentence should be changed from 
November 10, 2011 to September 8, 2011, so as to properly reflect the 
amount of Level V time he has left to serve on his sentence.   
 
(7) 
Once a defendant commits a VOP, the Superior Court has the 
authority to require him to serve the sentence originally imposed, or any 
lesser sentence,2 as long as the defendant is given credit for all Level V time 
previously served on that sentence and the sentence does not exceed the 
Level V term that a prior sentence left suspended.3  
 
(8) 
The record reflects that the Superior Court subtracted 6 months 
from Wilson’s suspended Level V sentence on its most recent VOP 
sentencing order to account for Level V time he had previously served.  This 
is in excess of the time to which Wilson appears to claim he is entitled.  We 
have reviewed this matter carefully and conclude that Wilson has not carried 
his burden of demonstrating that the Superior Court failed to account for all 
of the Level V time to which he is entitled.  As such, we conclude that the 
Superior Court’s judgment must be affirmed. 
                                                 
2 State v. Sloman, 886 A.2d 1257, 1260 (Del. 2005); Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, §4334(c). 
3 Gamble v. State, 728 A.2d 1171, 1172 (Del. 1999). 
 
5
 
(9) 
It is manifest on the face of the opening brief that this appeal is 
without merit because the issues presented on appeal are controlled by 
settled Delaware law and, to the extent that judicial discretion is implicated, 
there was no abuse of discretion. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to 
affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.4  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice     
 
                                                 
4 Wilson’s motion to expedite is hereby denied as moot.