Case Title: Caldwell v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 211, 2004

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2004-09-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
FRED T. CALDWELL, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 211, 2004 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Kent County 
§  Cr. ID 9807006121 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: June 29, 2004 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: September 13, 2004 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 13th day of September 2004, 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, Fred Caldwell, filed this appeal from 
the Superior Court’s denial of his motion for correction of sentence.  The 
State of Delaware has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment on the 
ground that it is manifest on the face of Caldwell’s opening brief that his 
appeal is without merit.  We agree and affirm. 
(2) 
The record reflects that Caldwell was arrested in 1998.  A 
Superior Court jury convicted him of various drug charges in December 
 
2
1999.  On direct appeal, this Court reversed Caldwell’s convictions and 
remanded the matter for a new trial.1 Following remand, Caldwell pled 
guilty to one count of attempted possession with intent to deliver cocaine.  
The Superior Court sentenced him to seven years at Level V incarceration, 
suspended for time served, followed by two and a half years of probation.  
Caldwell did not appeal.   
(3) 
In March 2002, the Superior Court found Caldwell in violation 
of the terms of his probation.  He was sentenced to three years at Level V to 
be suspended after serving 30 days for two and a half years of probation.  In 
July 2002, Caldwell again was found to be in violation of the terms of his 
probation.  The Superior Court sentenced him to 35 months at Level V to be 
suspended after serving two years for decreasing levels of supervision.  
Caldwell did not appeal.  Instead, he filed a motion for correction of 
sentence asserting that the Superior Court’s VOP sentence was illegal 
because it exceeded the total amount of Level V time remaining on his 
sentence because the Superior Court failed to credit him with an additional 
six months of time served.  The Superior Court denied Caldwell’s motion.  
This appeal followed. 
                                                 
1 Caldwell v. State, 780 A.2d 1037, 1060 (Del. 2001). 
 
3
 
(4) 
The Court has reviewed the parties’ contentions and the record 
carefully.  The Court finds no factual or legal basis to Caldwell’s 
contentions.  Based on the record before us, it appears that, at the time of his 
second VOP sentencing in July 2002, Caldwell had served no more than 44 
months in prison on his original seven-year sentence.  Accordingly, there 
was no legal or factual error in the Superior Court’s decision to sentence 
Caldwell to 35 months at Level V incarceration for his second violation of 
probation because the 35-month term did not exceed the total amount of 
Level V time remaining on his original sentence.  To the extent Caldwell 
contends that he has served an additional six months in prison for which he 
did not receive proper credit, there is simply nothing in this record to support 
his assertion. 2  Accordingly, we find no error in the Superior Court’s denial 
of Caldwell’s motion for correction of sentence. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                                 
2 Tricoche v. State, 525 A.2d 151, 154 (Del. 1987).