Case Title: Drummond v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 468, 2004

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2005-03-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
ANTONIO T. DRUMMOND
§
§
No. 468, 2004
Defendant Below,
§
Appellant,
§       On Appeal from Superior Court
§
of the State of Delaware
     
     v.
                    §         in and for Sussex County
§
Cr.A. Nos. VS02-02-0399-02
STATE OF DELAWARE,
§
and VS02-02-0400-02
§
Plaintiff Below, 
§
Appellee.
§
Submitted: February 23, 2005
Decided:  March 28 , 2005
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices.    
O R D E R
This 28  day of March, 2005, upon consideration of the briefs of the
th
parties, it appears to the Court that:
(1)  Antonio T. Drummond appeals the sentence he received after pleading
guilty to a violation of probation.  Drummond concedes that he violated the
terms of his probation and that the sentence imposed was within statutory limits.
His sole claim on appeal is that the trial court relied on demonstrably false
information in determining his sentence.   
(2)  On July 22, 2002, Drummond pled guilty to two counts of assault in
the second degree, resisting arrest, and possession of marijuana.  He was
sentenced to 12 years at Level V, suspended after one year, followed by 11 years
2
on probation.  On April 1, 2004, Drummond was found guilty of violating
probation after he was arrested on various criminal charges.  The trial court
revoked his probation and sentenced Drummond to seven years at Level V,
suspended for six months at Level IV Home Confinement, followed by five years
at Level III.
(3)  At the end of May 2004, Drummond again violated the terms of his
probation, this time by leaving his residence during curfew hours and by failing
to maintain gainful employment.  The police did not locate him until July 23,
2004, when Drummond was arrested and charged with trafficking in cocaine,
distribution of cocaine to a minor, and possession with intent to deliver cocaine.  
(4) At the September 2004 violation of probation hearing, Drummond
admitted the curfew and employment violations, but contested the new criminal
charges.  The Superior Court sentenced Drummond to five years at Level V, with
credit for 60 days served, and two years at Level V suspended for two years
probation.  During sentencing, the court noted that Drummond had been
convicted of robbery in the first degree, assaults and drug charges.  After
learning that Drummond, who was 25 years old, had spent almost seven years in
prison, the court observed:
  Ward v. State, 567 A.2d 1296, 1297 (Del. 1989).
1
  Mayes v. State, 604 A.2d 839, 843 (Del. 1992).
2
3
You get out [of prison] and you can’t stay out of trouble, it
looks like.  The aggravators are surely there.  Repeated
criminal conduct.  You cannot stay out of trouble.  You can’t
apparently handle probation.
(5) Drummond argues that the Superior Court relied on demonstrably false
information when it sentenced him because Drummond had no first degree
robbery conviction.  He had been charged with first degree robbery, but pled
guilty to second degree robbery.  Since the robbery conviction was the most
serious crime Drummond committed, he contends that the trial court’s mistaken
belief requires that he be resentenced.
(6)  Our review of a sentence "generally ends upon determination that the
sentence is within the statutory limits prescribed by the legislature."   If a
1
sentence is within statutory limits, this Court will find error only if it is clear that
the sentence was “imposed on the basis of demonstrably false information or
information lacking a minimal indicium of reliability.”2
 (7) The record establishes that the trial court did not impose its sentence on
the basis of its mistaken belief that Drummond’s robbery conviction was a first
degree robbery instead of a second degree robbery.  The trial court noted
Drummond’s repeated criminal behavior and his inability to stay out of trouble
while on probation.  Whether Drummond had been convicted of first degree
robbery or second degree robbery, the trial court’s conclusion that he had a
4
history of repeated criminal conduct was not “demonstrably false” – it was
accurate.  Moreover, Drummond alerted the trial court to its mistake in his
Motion for Modification.  Since the court denied his motion after it had all the
correct information as to Drummond’s criminal history, it is apparent that the
court did not rely on the level of robbery conviction in imposing its sentence.
  NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior
Court be, and the same hereby is, AFFIRMED.  
By the Court:
/s/ Carolyn Berger
Justice