Case Title: Harris v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 519, 2000

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2001-03-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
  
ANDREW D. HARRIS, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 519, 2000 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Kent County 
§  Cr.A. No. VK97-10-0757-04 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: February 6, 2001 
  Decided: 
March 8, 2001 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and STEELE, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 8th day of March 2001, upon consideration of the appellant’s opening 
brief and the State of Delaware’s motion to affirm, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Andrew D. Harris, filed this appeal from an order of 
the Superior Court modifying his criminal sentence.  The State of Delaware has 
moved to affirm the judgment of the Superior Court on the ground that it is 
manifest on the face of Harris' opening brief that the appeal is without merit.1 
We agree and affirm. 
                                                          
 
1Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
 
 
-2- 
(2) 
The record reflects that Harris pled guilty in March 1998 to one 
count of felony driving under the influence.  The Superior Court sentenced 
Harris to two years at Level V imprisonment, suspended after six months for 
decreasing levels of supervision.  Thereafter, Harris was found in violation of 
probation (VOP) on four separate occasions, in September 1998, April 1999, 
November 1999, and August 2000.  
(3) 
Following his fourth VOP hearing in August 2000, the Superior 
Court revoked Harris’ probation and reimposed sentence as follows: eighteen 
months at Level V imprisonment, suspended after six months with the balance 
to be served at Level III probation. In September 2000, Harris filed a motion to 
correct the Superior Court’s sentence. In his motion, Harris asserted that the 
Superior Court’s August 25 sentencing order was improper because it failed to 
account for all the time he previously served at Level V imprisonment.  Without 
addressing his specific claims, the Superior Court responded to Harris’ motion 
by modifying its August 25, 2000 sentencing order to reimpose an eighteen 
month sentence at Level V incarceration, with credit for time previously served, 
to be suspended for six months at Level IV Work Release.  The Superior Court 
thus suspended all of Harris’ Level V jail time. 
 
 
-3- 
(4) 
The gist of Harris’ complaint about the Superior Court’s modified 
sentence is that it fails to give him credit for all the time he previously served at 
Level V incarceration on this charge. The State responds that Harris’ complaint 
is moot given that the Superior Court, in its modified sentence, suspended all of 
Harris’ Level V time for six months at Level IV.   
(5) 
It is well settled that, upon finding a violation of probation, the 
Superior Court is authorized to reimpose any previously suspended prison term.2 
 In this case, the Superior Court originally sentenced Harris to a total of two 
years at Level V incarceration, suspended after six months for decreasing levels 
of supervision.  Accordingly, upon a subsequent finding that Harris had violated 
his probation, the Superior Court was authorized to reimpose the eighteen month 
suspended portion of Harris’ original sentence. Reimposing the suspended 
portion of the original sentence upon a subsequent finding of a VOP inherently 
credits a defendant with any time the defendant already has served on the 
unsuspended portion of the original sentence.  
                                                          
 
2Ingram v. State, Del. Supr., 567 A.2d 868, 869 (1989) (citing 11 Del. C. § 4334(c)).   
 
 
-4- 
(6) 
In Harris’ case, he spent six months in jail on his original two year 
sentence. Credit for the six months Harris originally spent in jail on this charge 
was reflected in the Superior Court’s reimposition of an eighteen month 
sentence following Harris’ first VOP. To the extent that the Superior Court 
ordered that Harris be credited with time served on his eighteen month VOP 
sentence, that credit time should not include the six months Harris spent in jail 
on the original sentence because credit for those six months already was 
reflected in the Superior Court’s reduction of the original two year sentence to 
eighteen months. Credit time toward the eighteen month VOP sentence should 
include only time Harris has spent in jail for a violation of probation.3  
(7) 
Accordingly, at the time of his fourth VOP hearing, the record 
reflects that Harris had not spent more than eighteen months at Level V 
incarceration for his earlier probation violations. Thus, Harris’ claim that the 
Superior Court’s modified sentence (which in fact suspended all of his Level V 
time following his fourth VOP) exceeded the maximum punishment authorized 
by law is without merit. 
                                                          
 
3Harris is entitled to receive Level V credit toward his eighteen month VOP sentence 
for any time that he has spent at Level V, including time spent awaiting space availability in 
a Level IV program. Gamble v. State, Del. Supr., 728 A.2d 1171, 1172 (1999). 
 
 
-5- 
(8) 
It is manifest on the face of Harris's opening brief that his appeal is 
without merit because the issues presented on appeal clearly are controlled by 
settled Delaware law and, to the extent that judicial discretion is implicated, 
clearly there was no abuse of discretion. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 25(a), the State's motion to affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment of the 
Superior Court is hereby AFFIRMED. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
Justice