Title: Stevenson v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
  
HAROLD J. STEVENSON, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 304, 2001 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Kent County 
§  Cr. A. Nos. VK00-01-0212 
§                    VK91-03-0109 
§                    VK99-03–0001 
 
Submitted: September 10, 2002 
  Decided:   September 17, 2002 
 
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices 
 
 
O R D E R1 
 
This 17th day of June 2002, upon consideration of the appellant’s brief 
filed pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 26(c), his attorney’s motion to withdraw 
and the State’s response thereto, his attorney’s motion for reargument, the 
Superior Court’s report following remand, and the underlying record on 
remand, it appears to the Court that: 
                                                 
1This Order supersedes the Order issued by this Court in Stevenson v. State, Del. Supr., 
No. 304, 2001, Berger, J. (Feb. 11, 2002), which is hereby withdrawn. 
 
 
-2- 
(1) 
In May 1991, the defendant-appellant, Harold J. Stevenson, was 
charged with Robbery in the First Degree, Possession of a Hypodermic Needle 
and Syringe, Resisting Arrest and Criminal Impersonation.  On September 6, 
1991, Stevenson pleaded guilty to Robbery in the Second Degree as a lesser-
included offense of Robbery in the First Degree.  He was sentenced to 5 years 
incarceration at Level V, to be suspended after 3 years for 1 year at Level IV (at 
least 3 months at residential treatment facility and remainder at halfway house), 
followed by 1 year at Level III probation.  The remaining charges were dismissed 
by the State.2   
                                                 
2The Superior Court modified this sentence on October 14, 1993 to include a June 10, 
1991 effective date and additional special conditions, and to provide for a probationary period 
of 6 months at Level IV (at least 3 months at residential treatment facility and remainder at 
halfway house), followed by 1 year at Level III. 
(2) 
On February 1, 2000, Stevenson was charged with Criminal 
Impersonation, Possession of Cocaine and Loitering.  On February 29, 2000, he 
pleaded guilty to Possession of Cocaine and was sentenced to 1 year 
incarceration at Level V, to be suspended for 1 year at Level III probation. In 
August 2000, Stevenson was charged with a violation of probation (“VOP”).  At a 
 
 
-3- 
September 8, 2000 VOP hearing, Stevenson was found to have violated his 
probation. On the cocaine possession conviction, Stevenson was re-sentenced to 
1 year incarceration at Level V, to be suspended after 30 days for 1 year at Level 
III probation.  On the robbery conviction, his probation was continued.   
(3) 
In May 2001, Stevenson again was charged with a VOP. Following a 
hearing on June 1, 2001, at which Stevenson was represented by counsel, 
Stevenson was found to have violated his probation and was sentenced, on the 
robbery conviction, to 2 years incarceration at Level V, to be suspended after 6 
months, and, on the cocaine possession conviction, to 11 months incarceration 
at Level V, including completion of the Key Program.3  
                                                 
3Stevenson was also erroneously sentenced for a VOP in connection with a charge of 
Reckless Burning (VK99-03-0001).  This error was corrected by the Superior Court in a 
subsequent order dated June 6, 2001. 
 
 
-4- 
(4) 
Stevenson’s counsel filed a brief and a motion to withdraw pursuant 
to Rule 26(c), asserting that, based upon a careful and complete examination of 
the record, there were no arguably appealable issues.4    By letter, Stevenson’s 
counsel informed Stevenson of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided him 
with a copy of the motion to withdraw, the accompanying brief and the complete 
trial transcript.  Stevenson was also informed of his right to supplement his 
attorney’s presentation.  Stevenson responded with a brief that raised several 
issues for this Court’s consideration.  The State filed a response and moved to 
affirm the Superior Court’s judgment.   
(6) 
Stevenson raised four issues for this Court’s consideration regarding 
his June 1, 2001 VOP hearing.  He claimed that: a) he did not have a drug test 
on February 26, 2001 and, therefore, the Superior Court’s finding of a VOP on 
that basis was improper; b) his VOP notice did not refer to his failure to appear 
for a counseling session and, therefore, the Superior Court’s finding of a VOP 
on that basis was improper; c) his due process rights pursuant to Superior Court 
Criminal Rule 32.1 were violated; and d) his 2-year sentence for a VOP in 
                                                 
4Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 U.S. 
429, 442 (1988); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). 
 
 
-5- 
connection with his robbery conviction was improper because he had only 1 year 
remaining on that sentence. 
(7) 
By Order dated February 11, 2002, we ruled that Stevenson’s 
claims, which we reviewed for plain error,5 were without merit.6  Specifically, we 
concluded that Stevenson’s claim that he had no drug test on February 26, 2001 
was contradicted by the record and that, even if that claim had merit, there was 
still a sufficient basis for the finding of a VOP, and no plain error, since 
Stevenson admitted at the hearing that he had a positive drug test on December 
18, 2000, which was a clear probation violation.  We also concluded that 
Stevenson’s claim of violations of his due process rights under Superior Court 
Criminal Rule 32.1, including specifically his right to notice of the charges 
against him, was unavailing in light of his admission that he had tested positive 
for illegal drugs.  Finally, in the absence of record support for Stevenson’s claim 
                                                 
5Wainwright v. State, 504 A.2d 1096, 1100 (Del. 1986); SUPR. CT. R. 8. 
6To the extent Stevenson claimed he was sentenced improperly for Reckless Burning, 
we further ruled that any such claim was moot, based upon the Superior Court’s June 6, 2001 
order. 
 
 
-6- 
that his 2-year sentence for the robbery conviction was improper, we concluded 
that that claim, too, was meritless.  
(8) 
Following this Court’s denial of Stevenson’s direct appeal,7 
Stevenson’s counsel filed a motion for reargument on Stevenson’s behalf on the 
basis that Stevenson’s 1991 sentence for robbery, including the probationary 
period, may have been satisfied prior to June 1, 2001, the date the Superior 
Court sentenced Stevenson for the VOP.  By Order dated May 9, 2002, we 
concluded, in the interest of justice, that the matter should be remanded to the 
Superior Court for a determination of whether any portion of Stevenson’s 1991 
robbery sentence remained to be served and, therefore, whether the Superior 
Court had jurisdiction on June 1, 2001, to sentence Stevenson for a VOP in 
connection with that conviction.   
(9) 
On June 6, 2002, the Superior Court held a hearing on remand.  
Based on the evidence presented, including 2 reports dated June 6, 2002  from 
the Investigative Services Office, the Superior Court determined that Stevenson’s 
1991 robbery sentence expired in 1997, well before he was sentenced for the 
                                                 
7Stevenson v. State, Del. Supr., No. 304, 2001, Berger, J. (Feb. 11, 2002).   
 
 
-7- 
VOP on June 1, 2001.8  Because Stevenson had no other unserved Level V 
sentences as of June 6, 2002, the Superior Court ordered him released forthwith, 
in accordance with the recommendation of the Investigative Services Offices and 
without opposition from the State.  That same date, in two separate orders, the 
Superior Court vacated the June 1, 2001 sentence and modified another of 
Stevenson’s criminal sentences9 to reflect credit for the 68 days Stevenson had 
served in error at Level V in connection with the 1991 robbery sentence.   
                                                 
8It appears, based upon the findings of the Superior Court on remand, that the 
Superior Court relied upon information contained in an August 2000 VOP report in 
sentencing Stevenson to additional Level V time in connection wth the 1991 robbery.  The 
report erroneously indicated that Stevenson committed his VOP’s while on probation in 
connection with the 1991 robbery conviction. 
9Stevenson had been sentenced for Possession of Marijuana on July 24, 2001 in IK01-
06-0628. 
(10) We have reviewed carefully the Superior Court’s report following 
remand as well as the underlying record and, in light of Stevenson’s release on 
June 6, 2002 and in the interest of efficiency, adopt the findings of the Superior 
 
 
-8- 
Court with respect to Stevenson’s claim that his 2-year VOP sentence in 
connection with his 1991 robbery conviction was improper.  
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that: 
(1) 
This Court’s February 11, 2002 Order is WITHDRAWN; 
(2) 
As to Stevenson’s first three claims of error on appeal, the State’s 
motion to affirm is GRANTED, the judgment of the Superior Court is 
AFFIRMED and counsel’s motion to withdraw is moot; and  
(3) 
As to Stevenson’s claim that his 2-year VOP sentence in connection 
with his 1991 robbery conviction was improper, the findings of the Superior 
Court on remand are ADOPTED and the February 25, 2002 motion for 
reargument is DISMISSED AS MOOT.   
BY THE COURT: 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
Justice