Case Title: McManus v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 34. 2011

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2011-04-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
MARTELL L. McMANUS, 
 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 34, 2011 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID Nos. 0911003645 and 
§  1001003468 
§   
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: February 1, 2011 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: April 11, 2011 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 11th day of April 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, Martell McManus, filed this appeal from the 
Superior Court’s sentence for his violation of probation (VOP).  The State has filed 
a motion to affirm the judgment below on the ground that it is manifest on the face 
of McManus’ opening brief that his appeal is without merit.  We agree and affirm. 
 
(2) 
The record reflects that McManus pled guilty on March 29, 2010 to 
one count of second degree conspiracy.  The Superior Court sentenced him to two 
years at Level V incarceration, to be suspended immediately for one year at Level 
 
2
II probation.  On June 10, 2010, McManus, in a different criminal action, pled 
guilty to one count each of menacing and offensive touching.  The Superior Court 
sentenced him on each charge to 30 days at Level V incarceration, to be suspended 
immediately for six months at Level II probation.  Thereafter, in October 2010, 
McManus was charged with violating probation in each of his cases.  After a 
hearing, the Superior Court sentenced him for violating the probation associated 
with his conspiracy conviction to four months at Level V incarceration and 
discharged him as unimproved from his other probationary sentences.  This appeal 
followed. 
 
(3) 
McManus’ only issue on appeal is that the Superior Court judge 
imposed an excessive sentence for his VOP.  While his argument is hard to follow, 
McManus seems to argue that he only had 84 days left to serve on probation, 
which somehow he interprets as leaving only fourteen days that the Superior Court 
could have sentenced him to serve at Level V incarceration.  We find no merit to 
McManus’ argument.  
 
(4) 
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.1  In this case, following 
McManus’s VOP on all of his prior sentences, there was two years and two months 
                                                 
1 11 Del. C. § 4334(c). 
 
3
of Level V time remaining to be served from McManus’ original sentences, which 
the Superior Court could have reimposed entirely after finding McManus guilty of 
a VOP.  Thus, the four month sentence imposed by the Superior Court was 
authorized by law, and we conclude that it was neither arbitrary nor excessive.2   
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                                 
2 See Mayes v. State, 604 A.2d 839, 842 (Del. 1992).