Case Title: Hardin v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 10, 2018

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2018-03-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
WILLIAM HARDIN, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 10, 2018 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID No. 1307010850 (K) 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:  February 22, 2018 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
March 12, 2018 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
The appellant’s opening brief, the appellee’s motion to affirm, and the record 
below reflect that: 
(1) 
The appellant, William Hardin, filed this appeal from a Superior Court 
order sentencing him for a violation of probation (“VOP”).  The State of Delaware 
has filed a motion to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment on the ground that it is 
clear on the face of Hardin’s opening brief that his appeal is without merit.  We agree 
and affirm. 
(2) 
On January 15, 2014, Hardin pled guilty to Driving Under the 
Influence.  This was Hardin’s fifth DUI offense.  The Superior Court immediately 
sentenced Hardin to five years of Level V incarceration, with credit for seven days 
2 
 
previously served, suspended after eighteen months for one year of Level III 
probation.  Hardin was required to complete drug and alcohol abstinence and 
treatment programs.  On March 13, 2015, Hardin’s sentence was modified to add 
Transdermal Alcohol Device monitoring and zero tolerance for alcohol conditions. 
(3) 
In January 2016, a capias was issued for Hardin’s first VOP based on a 
new charge of Public Intoxication.  The capias was returned in January 2017.  On 
February 10, 2017, the Superior Court found Hardin violated his probation.  The 
Superior Court sentenced Hardin, effective January 25, 2017, to three years and six 
months of Level V incarceration, suspended immediately for decreasing levels of 
supervision. 
(4) 
In September 2017, Hardin was charged with another VOP.  The VOP 
report alleged that Hardin failed to report to probation on August 31, 2017, 
September 7, 2017, and September 14, 2017.  The report also alleged that Hardin 
failed to report his change of residence within seventy-two hours and violated the 
zero tolerance of alcohol condition in his sentence.  The VOP hearing was originally 
scheduled in October 2017, but Hardin failed to appear.   
(5) 
On December 8, 2017, the Superior Court found that Hardin violated 
his probation.  The Superior Court sentenced Hardin, effective November 28, 2017, 
to three years and three months of Level V incarceration, with credit for ten days 
3 
 
previously served, suspended after one year for decreasing levels of supervision.  
This appeal followed. 
(6) 
In his opening brief, Hardin does not dispute that he violated his 
probation.  Hardin argues that his VOP sentence is too long for a “technical” 
violation, is longer than his original sentence, and exceeds the sentencing 
guidelines.1  Hardin also describes the treatment he received in the fall of 2017. 
(7) 
Once Hardin committed a VOP, the Superior Court could impose any 
period of incarceration up to and including the balance of the Level V time 
remaining on his sentence.2  Hardin’s original sentence was five years of Level V 
incarceration, not three years as he claims in his opening brief.  At the time Hardin 
was sentenced for his second VOP on December 8, 2017, he had served less than 
twenty-one months of his original sentence.  The December 8, 2017 VOP sentence 
(three years and three months of Level V incarceration, suspended after one year) 
did not exceed the Level V time remaining on Hardin’s original sentence.   
(8) 
As to Hardin’s claim that his VOP sentence exceeded the Sentencing 
Accountability Commission’s guidelines, “departure from the guidelines is not a 
basis to overturn a sentence within the statutory limits.”3  Hardin’s dismissal of his 
                                                 
1 Opening Brief at 4. 
2 11 Del. C. § 4334(c); Pavulak v. State, 880 A.2d 1044, 1046 (Del. 2005). 
3 Barrett v. State, 2015 WL 4510717, at *2 (Del. July 23, 2015) (citing Siple v. State, 701 A.2d 79, 
83 (Del. 1997)). 
4 
 
violation of the zero tolerance for alcohol condition as merely technical is 
unpersuasive in light of his DUI conviction.   
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is granted 
and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT:  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice