Case Title: Shaw v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 484, 2014

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2014-12-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
TITUS SHAW, 
 
 
 
§  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 484, 2014 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below–Superior Court of 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
the State of Delaware in and for 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
New Castle County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
Cr. ID No. 0806012567 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
  
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Submitted: October 29, 2014 
Decided: 
December 19, 2014 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice, RIDGELY, and VALIHURA, Justices.  
 
O R D E R 
 
This 19th day of December 2014, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief and the appellee’s motion to affirm, it appears to the Court 
that: 
(1) 
On January 5, 2009, the appellant, Titus Shaw, pled guilty to 
Robbery in the Second Degree and Possession of a Firearm During the 
Commission of a Felony.  The Superior Court sentenced Shaw to three years 
mandatory at Level V for the weapon offense and to five years at Level V 
for robbery.  The court suspended the robbery sentence for three years of 
Level III probation. 
2 
 
(2) 
On September 24, 2014, Shaw was found guilty of his sixth 
violation of probation (“VOP”) and was resentenced to three years and four 
months at Level V suspended for six months at the Level IV VOP Center.  
Shaw challenges the sentence on appeal, claiming that the Superior Court 
was not authorized to sentence him to any time at Level V because, by 
September 24, 2014, the date he was sentenced, he had completed all of the 
Level V time imposed in the original sentence in 2009. 
(3) 
This Court’s appellate review of a sentence generally is limited 
to whether the sentence exceeds the statutory limits.1  “[O]nce a defendant 
violates the terms of his probation, the Superior Court has the authority to 
require a defendant to serve the sentence imposed, or any lesser sentence.”2  
A VOP sentence must account for all time previously served at Level V or at 
a Level IV VOP Center.3  Also, a subsequent VOP sentence cannot exceed 
the term that a prior VOP sentence left suspended.4   
(4) 
We have reviewed the record and carefully considered the 
parties’ submissions, including the five-page “Delaware Department of 
Correction Level V Served Report” attached to the motion to affirm filed by 
                                          
 
1 Mayes v. State, 604 A.2d 839, 842 (Del. 1992). 
2 State v. Sloman, 886 A.2d 1257, 1260 (Del. 2005) (citing 11 Del. C. § 4334(c)). 
3 11 Del. C. § 3901(c); Gamble v. State, 728 A.2d 1171, 1171 (Del. 1999); Green v. State, 
2010 WL 2278251, at *2 (Del. June 7, 2010). 
4 Pavulak v. State, 880 A.2d 1044, 1045-46 (Del. 2005). 
3 
 
the appellee, State of Delaware.  It appears that, by September 16, 2014, the 
effective date of the September 24, 2014 sentence, Shaw had completed the 
original mandatory three-year Level V sentence for the weapon offense and 
had served just short of one year and six months of the original five-year 
Level V sentence for robbery.  Consequently, when sentencing Shaw on 
September 24, 2014 for the sixth VOP, the Superior Court was authorized to 
impose three years and four months at Level V, the balance of the five-year 
robbery sentence.  Three years and four months at Level V did not exceed 
the Level V term that was imposed and suspended on August 20, 2014 on 
Shaw’s fifth VOP.5 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is 
GRANTED.   The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
                                          
 
5 On the fifth VOP, Shaw was resentenced, for robbery, to three years and four months at 
Level V suspended for six months at Level IV work release.