Case Title: Hall v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 91, 2023

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2023-07-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
CLIFTON D. HALL, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 91, 2023 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID No. 190808699 (K) 
§                     
§                     
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:   May 25, 2023 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: July 26, 2023 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 
Upon consideration of the opening brief, motion to affirm, and record on 
appeal, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Clifton D. Hall, 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 judgment below on the ground that it is manifest on 
the face of Hall’s opening brief that his appeal is without merit.  We agree and affirm.   
(2) 
On July 14, 2021, Hall pleaded guilty to fourth-offense driving under 
the influence (“DUI”).  On August 6, 2021, the Superior Court sentenced Hall to 
five years of Level V incarceration, with credit for 168 days, suspended after the six-
month minimum under 21 Del. C. § 4177(d)(4) and (d)(9) for one year of Level III 
2 
 
probation.  The sentencing order also required Hall to be monitored by an alcohol 
monitoring device for at least 90 consecutive days and to complete a drug and 
alcohol abstinence program and a drug and alcohol treatment program.  Hall did not 
appeal.   
(3) 
Hall began serving his probation on August 12, 2021.  On November 3, 
2021 the Department of Correction (“DOC”) filed an administrative warrant for 
Hall’s VOP.  The VOP report alleged that Hall had violated his probation by testing 
positive for crack cocaine multiple times.  On December 3, 2021, the Superior Court 
found that Hall had violated his probation.  The Superior Court sentenced Hall to 
four years and six months of Level V incarceration, suspended for one year of Level 
V incarceration to be suspended upon Hall’s completion of a program within DOC’s 
discretion and followed by one year of Level III probation.  In addition to reimposing 
all previous terms and conditions, the sentencing order  required TASC to evaluate 
and monitor Hall during his probation. 
(4) 
On June 29, 2022, DOC filed a VOP report alleging that Hall had failed 
to report to his probation officer and pick up the alcohol monitoring device.  A capias 
issued for Hall’s arrest.  The capias was returned in September.  VOP hearings were 
scheduled in October and December, but Hall did not appear. 
(5) 
On February 4, 2023, Hall was arrested for theft.  A VOP hearing was 
scheduled for February 24, 2023.  On February 14, 2023, DOC filed a supplemental 
3 
 
VOP report alleging that Hall had violated his probation by committing new crimes 
while he had absconded from probation.  After a hearing on February 24, 2023, the 
Superior Court found that Hall had violated his probation and sentenced him to three 
years and ten months of Level V incarceration, suspended after two years for six 
months of Level IV work release.   This appeal followed.   
(6) 
In his opening brief, Hall does not dispute that he violated his probation.  
Instead, he argues that: (i) his counsel was ineffective; (ii) the Superior Court erred 
in sentencing him; and (iii) the Superior Court erred by allowing the disclosure of 
Hall’s protected health information without his informed consent during the VOP 
hearing.  It is manifest on the face of Hall’s opening brief that his appeal is without 
merit. 
(7) 
As to Hall’s first argument, this Court generally does not consider 
ineffective assistance of counsel claims for the first time on direct appeal and 
declines to do so here.1   
(8) 
Turning to Hall’s second argument, the Superior Court did not err in 
sentencing Hall for his VOP.  Once Hall 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  Hall’s VOP sentence—three years and ten months 
 
1 Williams v. State, 2022 WL 351084, at *1 (Del. Feb. 4, 2022) (citing Desmond v. State, 654 A.2d 
821, 829 (Del. 1994)). 
2 11 Del. C. § 4334(c); Pavulak v. State, 880 A.2d 1044, 1046 (Del. 2005). 
4 
 
of Level V incarceration, suspended after two years for six months of Level IV work 
release—did not exceed the Level V time remaining on his sentence.  Nor did the 
VOP sentence exceed the statutory time prescribed for fourth offense DUI as Hall 
contends.  When Hall committed this crime in 2019, Section 4177(d)(4) provided 
for imprisonment “of not less than 2 years nor more than 5 years.”  Section 
4177(d)(4) also permitted, but did not require, a sentencing court to suspend up to 
eighteen months of the minimum two-year sentence if the suspended sentence 
included participation in drug and alcohol abstinence and treatment programs.  The 
Superior Court did not sentence Hall to more than the statutory maximum for his 
VOP and was not required to suspend any portion of the VOP sentence.   
(9) 
In conclusory fashion, Hall claims that the Superior Court judge 
sentenced him with a closed mind, but the transcript of the VOP hearing does not 
reflect any bias or appearance of a closed mind by the judge.  Based on the evidence 
presented, the Superior Court judge could reasonably conclude that Hall’s 
absconding from probation, commission of a new crime, and failure to report to 
TASC merited the VOP sentence imposed.   
(10) Finally, Hall argues that the Superior Court erred by allowing a TASC 
witness to disclose his protected health information without his informed consent 
during the VOP hearing.  As the State points out, Hall raised his health issues and 
related hospital admissions as the primary reason he failed to appear for previous 
5 
 
VOP hearings.  The TASC witness, unprompted, simply advised the Superior Court 
of the treatment that TASC had been able to confirm for substance abuse and mental 
health issues Hall reported to be suffering.  Hall did not object the TASC witness’s 
statement and has not identified any basis for reversal of his VOP sentence.   
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to affirm is 
GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/Karen L. Valihura 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice