Case Title: Derrick v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 515, 2011

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2011-12-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DAVID R. DERRICK,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
                     Plaintiff Below- 
          Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 515, 2011 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, in and 
§  for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0606020710 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
                             
Submitted:  November 18, 2011 
 
Decided:    December 21, 2011 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 21st day of December 2011, upon consideration of the briefs of 
the parties and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) The defendant-appellant, David R. Derrick, filed an appeal from 
the Superior Court’s September 8, 2011 violation of probation (“VOP”) 
sentencing order.  We find no merit to the appeal.  Accordingly, we affirm. 
 
(2) The record before us reflects that, in 2007, Derrick pleaded guilty 
to one count of Home Improvement Fraud.  In exchange, the State dismissed 
an additional charge of Felony Theft.  Derrick subsequently was sentenced 
to 2 years of Level V incarceration, to be suspended for 6 months of Level 
IV Home Confinement and 18 months of Level III probation.  He also was 
 
2
ordered to pay $252,952.38 in restitution.  Derrick did not file a direct 
appeal. 
 
(3) Approximately three and a half months after being sentenced, 
Derrick violated his probation.  After a VOP hearing, Derrick was re-
sentenced to 2 years at Level V, to be suspended for 6 months at Level IV 
VOP Center, to be followed by 1 year at Level IV Work Release.  Several 
days later, after he had made a substantial payment toward his outstanding 
restitution obligation, his Level IV sentence was suspended and he was 
sentenced to 2 years at Level III probation.  In 2009, Derrick again 
committed a VOP.  He was re-sentenced to 2 years at Level V, to be 
suspended for 4 years at Level I (restitution only).   
 
(4) In May and September of 2010, Derrick again violated his 
probation.  On the first violation, he was re-sentenced to 2 years at Level V, 
to be suspended for 2 years at Level I (restitution only).  On the second 
violation, he was re-sentenced to 2 years at Level V, to be suspended for 1 
year of Level IV Home Confinement and 1 year of Level III probation. 
 
(5) In March and August of 2011, Derrick yet again violated his 
probation.  On the first violation, he was re-sentenced to 2 years at Level V, 
with credit for 10 days previously served, to be suspended for 6 months at 
Level IV Work Release (hold at Level V pending space availability at Level 
 
3
IV), to be followed by 18 months at Level III probation.  On the second 
violation, he was re-sentenced to 2 years at Level V, with credit for 47 days 
previously served, to be suspended after 90 days for the balance of the 
sentence to be served at Level IV Work Release (hold at Level V pending 
space availability at Level IV), in turn to be suspended after 6 months for the 
balance of the sentence to be served at Level III probation.  The record 
before us reflects that, as of the date of his latest VOP sentencing order, 
Derrick still owed over $200,000 in restitution. 
 
(6) In this appeal, Derrick claims that the Superior Court’s latest 
VOP sentence exceeds the sentence originally imposed.  He requests that his 
sentence be discharged and the remaining amount of his restitution be 
reduced to a civil judgment.    
 
(7) Once a VOP is established, the Superior Court is authorized to 
impose the suspended Level V sentence or any lesser sentence.1 This Court 
will not reverse a VOP sentence unless it can be demonstrated that the 
sentence exceeds the maximum allowed by law or is the result of vindictive 
or arbitrary action on the part of the sentencing judge.2  Moreover, only time 
                                                 
1 Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, §4334(c); State v. Sloman, 886 A.2d 1257, 1260 (Del. 2005). 
2 Siple v. State, 701 A.2d 79, 83 (Del. 1997). 
 
4
spent either at Level V or Level IV VOP Center may be credited against a 
defendant’s Level V sentence.3 
 
(8) Derrick’s VOP sentencing orders do not reflect that the Superior 
Court either exceeded the maximum sentence allowed by law, exceeded the 
amount of Level V time remaining on his original sentence or abused its 
discretion in sentencing him.  To the extent that Derrick argues that he is 
entitled to credit against his Level V sentence for time spent at any level 
other than Level V or Level IV VOP Center, that argument is without merit.   
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
       Justice  
                                                 
3 Gamble v. State, 728 A.2d 1171, 1172 (Del. 1999).