Title: Beck v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
KATIE BECK, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 157, 2019 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID No. S1705021329 
§                      
§                      
§ 
 
Submitted: April 16, 2019 
Decided: 
May 15, 2019 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; SEITZ and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
After consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the State’s motion to 
affirm, and the record on appeal, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Katie Beck, appeals from the Superior Court’s order 
sentencing her for her third violation of probation (“VOP”).  The State has filed a 
motion to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment on the ground that it is manifest on 
the face of Beck’s opening brief that the appeal is without merit.  We affirm the 
Superior Court’s judgment. 
(2) 
The record reflects that on June 13, 2017 Beck pleaded guilty to 
Aggravated Menacing, two counts of Offensive Touching, and Criminal Mischief.  
The Superior Court sentenced her to a total period of five years and ninety days of 
 
2 
Level V incarceration, with credit for fourteen days previously served, to be 
suspended for probation.   
(3) 
The Superior Court found Beck in violation of probation on September 
14, 2017.  For that first VOP, the court resentenced Beck to four years and nine 
months of Level V incarceration for the Aggravated Menacing charge, suspended 
after four months at Level V for one year of probation.  For the Offensive Touching 
and Criminal Mischief charges, the court discharged Beck as unimproved.   
(4) 
The Superior Court found Beck in violation of probation for a second 
time on April 20, 2018.  The court resentenced Beck to four years of Level V 
incarceration, with the balance of the sentence suspended for one year at supervision 
Level IV residential substance abuse treatment, suspended upon successful 
completion for six months of Level III aftercare. 
(5) 
On March 29, 2019, after finding her in violation of probation for a 
third time, the Superior Court resentenced Beck, effective March 29, 2019, to three 
years of Level V incarceration, to be discharged as unimproved after serving one 
year in prison.  The sentencing order provided that “[t]he level 5 time imposed in 
today’s sentence takes into consideration all time previously served.”  Beck has 
appealed to this Court.  She argues that the effective date of the VOP sentence 
deprives her of credit for fourteen days that she was incarcerated while awaiting the 
VOP hearing.   
 
3 
(6) 
This Court’s appellate review of a sentence is extremely limited and 
generally ends upon a determination that the sentence is within the statutory limits 
prescribed by the legislature.1  Title 11, Section 3901(b) of the Delaware Code 
provides that “[a]ll sentences for criminal offenses of persons who at the time 
sentence is imposed are held in custody in default of bail, or otherwise, shall begin 
to run and be computed from the date of incarceration for the offense for which said 
sentence shall be imposed . . . .”  A sentencing court may satisfy Section 3901 either 
by “backdating” the effective date of the sentence to the date of incarceration or by 
crediting the defendant with the time served.2  Here, the Superior Court credited 
Beck with the time served by providing in the body of the sentencing order that the 
sentence took into account all time previously served and by reducing the Level V 
time remaining on her sentence.3 
(7) 
Once the State established the VOP, the Superior Court was authorized 
to impose any period of incarceration up to and including the balance of the Level 
V time remaining to be served on Beck’s sentence.4  On April 20, 2018, after finding 
her in violation of probation for the second time, the court had resentenced Beck to 
                                               
 
1 Rittenhouse v. State, 2014 WL 5690489, at *2 (Del. Nov. 3, 2014). 
2 McNair v. State, 2011 WL 768639, at *1 (Del. Mar. 4, 2011); Fields v. State, 2010 WL 1711768, 
at *1 (Del. Apr. 28, 2010). 
3 See Rittenhouse, 2014 WL 5690489, at *2 (holding that an order reducing Level V time 
remaining from previous sentence and stating that the Level V time imposed took into 
consideration all time previously served comported with 11 Del. C. § 3901). 
4 11 Del. C. § 4334(c). 
 
4 
four years of Level V incarceration, suspended for various levels of supervision.  
Beck does not allege that she was incarcerated for any period of time after April 20, 
2018, other than the fourteen days beginning March 15, 2019, when she was 
awaiting her third VOP hearing.  Thus, it appears that at the time of sentencing for 
her third VOP, three years and 351 days of Level V time were remaining on her 
sentence.  She received a sentence of three years of Level V incarceration, of which 
she must serve only one year.  The sentence imposed by the Superior Court therefore 
did not exceed the Level V time remaining on her sentence.5 
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/ Gary F. Traynor 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
                                               
 
5 See Rivera v. State, 2014 WL 2093709, at *3 (Del. May 15, 2014) (stating that, for a VOP, the 
“Superior Court could impose any period up to and including the balance of the Level V time 
remaining on the [previous VOP] sentence”).