Case Title: Drummond v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 688, 2002

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2003-06-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
MARK A. DRUMMOND, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 688, 2002 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr.A. Nos. IN96-01-0681, -0688, 
§  and -0692 
§  Cr. ID 9512013514 
§ 
 
Submitted:  April 25, 2003 
Decided:  June 10, 2003 
 
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, BERGER, and STEELE, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 10th  day of June 2003, upon consideration of the parties’ briefs and the 
record on appeal, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Mark Drummond, filed this appeal from the 
Superior Court’s order denying his motion for correction of sentence.  We find no 
merit to Drummond’s appeal.  Accordingly, we affirm. 
 
(2) 
The record reflects that Drummond pled guilty in 1996 to aggravating 
menacing, second degree assault, and possession of a firearm during the 
commission of a felony.  Drummond was declared an habitual offender.  The 
Superior Court sentenced him on the aggravating menacing charge as an habitual 
offender to 18 years imprisonment.  Additionally, the Superior Court sentenced 
 
2
Drummond to six years imprisonment on the weapon charge and to eight years 
imprisonment, suspended after three years, on the assault charge.  Since that time, 
Drummond has filed several unsuccessful motions to correct or modify his 
sentence.  Drummond filed his latest motion for correction of sentence in 
November 2002, which the Superior Court denied.   
(3) 
The gist of Drummond’s argument on appeal is that his six-year 
sentence on the weapon charge violates Delaware law, which provides that a 
person convicted under the weapon statute “shall receive a minimum sentence of 3 
years. . . .”1  According to Drummond, the Superior Court was authorized to 
impose a three-year sentence and nothing more.  The Superior Court rejected 
Drummond’s motion on the ground that the weapon statute set the minimum length 
of the sentence to be imposed but did not prohibit the sentencing court from 
imposing more than the three-year minimum. 
 
(4) 
Having carefully considered the parties= respective positions, we find 
it manifest that the judgment of the Superior Court should be affirmed.  Section 
1447A(b) does not, as Drummond contends, provide for a mandatory, fixed three-
year sentence.  Drummond’s interpretation fails to give effect to the statute’s use of 
the term “minimum.”  As the Superior Court properly found, the phrase “minimum 
sentence of 3 years” requires the Superior Court to impose at least a three-year 
                                                 
1 DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 1447A(b) (2001). 
 
3
sentence but does not prohibit the Superior Court from imposing a lengthier 
sentence. Accordingly, the Superior Court did not err or abuse its discretion in 
denying Drummond’s motion for correction of sentence.   
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice