Case Title: Roberts v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 42, 2013

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2013-07-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JAMAL H. ROBERTS,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
           Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 42, 2013 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 1103003228 
§                    1109008081 
§ 
§ 
 
                                         Submitted: June 7, 2013 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: July 15, 2013 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 15th day of July 2013, upon consideration of the briefs of the 
parties and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Jamal H. Roberts, filed an appeal 
from the Superior Court’s January 3, 2013 corrected violation of probation 
(“VOP”) sentencing order and its denial of his motion for sentence 
modification.  We find no merit to the appeal.  Accordingly, we affirm. 
 
(2) 
The record reflects that, on June 13, 2011, Roberts pled guilty 
to Felony Noncompliance With Conditions of Bond in Superior Court 
Criminal Identification Number 1103003228.  He was sentenced to 2 years 
of Level V incarceration, with credit for 3 days served, to be suspended for 1 
 
2
year at Level III probation.  On December 22, 2011, Roberts was found to 
have committed a VOP in Cr. ID No. 1103003228.  He was re-sentenced to 
2 years at Level V, to be suspended after 60 days for 18 months at Level III.   
 
(3) 
On January 26, 2012, Roberts again was charged with 
committing a VOP in Cr. ID No. 1103003228.  On February 16, 2012, 
following a contested VOP hearing, Roberts was found to have committed 
another VOP.  He was re-sentenced to 1 year, 9 months and 22 days at Level 
V, to be suspended after 1 year, 6 months for 3 months and 22 days at Level 
IV Work Release, to be held at Level V pending space availability.   
 
(4) 
On February 14, 2012, 2 days before the VOP hearing, Roberts 
had pled guilty in Cr. ID No. 1109008081 to Failure to Obey a Police 
Officer Signal and Reckless Driving Alcohol Related.  He had been 
sentenced to 2 years at Level V, to be suspended for 6 months at Level III, 
on the first conviction and to 30 days at Level V, to be suspended for 6 
months at Level II (concurrent) on the second conviction.   
 
(5) 
On March 2, 2012, Roberts appealed the Superior Court’s 
February 14, 2012 VOP sentencing order on the ground that his VOP 
sentence did not comply with Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, §4204(1) because no 
Level V time had been imposed.  This Court held, among other things, that 
Roberts was required to present that issue to the Superior Court by means of 
 
3
a sentence modification motion in the first instance.1  Following the filing of 
a supplemental sentence modification motion by Roberts, the Superior Court 
scheduled a hearing to address the issues raised.  On January 3, 2013, the 
Superior Court issued a corrected sentencing order stating that the 
concurrent 6-month periods at Level III and Level II in Cr. ID No. 
1109008081 satisfied the statutory requirement of §4204(1) in the 
sentencing order in Cr. ID No. 1103003228.  The Superior Court also denied 
Roberts’ latest motion for sentence modification.   
 
(6) 
In this appeal, Roberts claims that the Superior Court erred and 
abused its discretion when it issued its corrected VOP sentencing order and 
denied his latest motion for sentence modification because his VOP sentence 
in Cr. ID No. 1103003228 does not comply with §4204(1).  To the extent 
that Roberts has not included claims in this appeal that were presented to the 
Superior Court below, any such claims are deemed to be waived and will not 
be addressed by this Court.2 
 
(7) 
Section 4204(l) provides as follows:  “. . . whenever the court 
imposes a period of incarceration at Level V custody for 1 or more offenses 
that totals 1 year or more, then that court must include as part of its sentence 
a period of custodial supervision at either Level IV, III or II for a period of 
                                                 
1 Roberts v. State, 2012 WL 1454829 (Del. Apr. 25, 2012). 
2 Murphy v. State, 632 A.2d 1150, 1152 (Del. 1993). 
 
4
not less than six months to facilitate the transition of the individual back into 
society.”  The intent of the statutory language is to ensure that no individual 
is returned directly to the community without any transition or follow-up 
supervision.3 
 
(8) 
In this case, the Superior Court combined elements of two 
sentencing orders in order to achieve compliance with §4204(1).  In 
accordance with the Superior Court’s January 3, 2013 sentencing order in 
Cr. ID No. 1103003228, Roberts will serve 1 year, 6 months at Level V, to 
be followed by 3 months, 22 days at Level IV Work Release.  He will then 
serve 6 months at Level III probation and, concurrently, 6 months at Level 
II, as contained in the sentencing order in Cr. ID No. 1109008081.  That 
sentencing scheme not only reflects the Superior Court’s intent, but complies 
with the statutory requirement.  We find no error or abuse of discretion on 
the part of the Superior Court in sentencing Roberts as it did and no error or 
abuse of discretion in the Superior Court’s denial of Roberts’ motion for 
sentence modification.  We, therefore, conclude that the Superior Court’s 
judgment must be affirmed. 
 
 
                                                 
3 Nave v. State, 783 A.2d 120, 122 (Del. 2001). 
 
5
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice