Case Title: Drummond v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 86, 2002

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2002-08-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
  
MARK A. DRUMMOND, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 86, 2002 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr.A. No. S96-01-012-01 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: July 26, 2002 
  Decided:   August 28, 2002 
 
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and STEELE, Justices 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 28th day of August 2002, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal 
and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Mark A. Drummond, filed this appeal 
from the Superior Court’s corrected sentencing order dated January 25, 2002.  
We find no merit to the appeal.  Accordingly, we AFFIRM. 
(2) 
In this appeal, Drummond claims that the Superior Court erred 
when it corrected his sentence on January 25, 2002 because it did not include in 
 
 
-2- 
that sentence a 6-month probationary transition period, as mandated by statute.1 
  
 
(3) 
In March 1996, Drummond pleaded guilty in Sussex County 
Superior Court to a charge of Escape After Conviction.  He was declared an 
habitual offender.  In July 1996 the Superior Court sentenced Drummond to 15 
years incarceration at Level V, to be suspended after 8 years and completion of 
the New Hope Program for 18 months at Level III, followed by 5 years at Level 
II.  In October 1996, Drummond pleaded guilty to additional criminal charges in 
New Castle County Superior Court.  He was sentenced to a total of 27 years 
incarceration at Level V, to be followed by 6 months at Level IV work release, 
then 4 years and 6 months at Level III probation.   
                                                 
1DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 4204(l) (2001). 
 
 
-3- 
(4) 
On January 25, 2002, the Sussex County Superior Court corrected 
Drummond’s March 1996 sentence by reducing it to 8 years incarceration at 
Level V.2  The hearing transcript reflects that the Sussex County Superior Court 
did not add a 6-month probationary transition period because Drummond had 
been sentenced by the New Castle County Superior Court in October 1996 to a 
lengthy Level V sentence and a lengthy period of probation that was substantially 
in excess of the mandatory 6-month period.  Drummond did not object to the 
sentence imposed at the January 25, 2002 sentencing hearing. 
(5) 
There was no plain error3 in the Superior Court’s corrected 
sentence.  The purpose of the 6-month probationary transition period is to assure 
that no incarcerated individual is returned directly to the community without 
any transition or follow-up supervision.4  Under the probationary portion of the 
sentence imposed by the New Castle County Superior Court, Drummond will 
serve substantially more than 6 months probation after he completes his 
                                                 
2The Superior Court determined that a correction was necessary because a portion of 
Drummond’s original sentence had been suspended for probation in violation of the habitual 
offender statute.  DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 4214(a) (2001). 
3SUPR. CT. R. 8.  
4Nave v. State, 783 A.2d 120, 122 (Del. 2001). 
 
 
-4- 
consecutive terms of Level V incarceration,5 thereby fulfilling the statutory 
requirements.   
 
 
                                                 
5Faircloth v. State, 522 A.2d 1268, 1272 (Del. 1987). 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED.     
BY THE COURT: 
/s/ E. Norman Veasey 
Chief Justice