Title: Dawkins v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DYWINE A. DAWKINS,   
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 601, 2009 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0903016239 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: March 12, 2010 
 
 
 
 
Decided:    April 28, 2010 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 28th day of April 2010, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal 
and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
On October 6, 2009, the defendant-appellant, Dywine A. 
Dawkins, was found to have committed a violation of probation (“VOP”) in 
connection with his sentence for Assault in the Third Degree.  He was 
sentenced to 9 months of incarceration at Level V, with no probation to 
follow.  This is Dawkins’ direct appeal from his VOP sentence. 
 
(2) 
The record reflects that, in March 2009, Dawkins was indicted 
on a number of charges, including Assault in the Second Degree and 
Possession of a Deadly Weapon During the Commission of a Felony.  In 
 
2 
April 2009, Dawkins pleaded guilty to the lesser-included offense of Assault 
in the Third Degree in exchange for which the State dismissed the remaining 
charges.  Dawkins was sentenced to 1 year of incarceration at Level V, to be 
suspended for 1 year at Level III probation.  Dawkins was arrested and 
charged with a VOP on September 10, 2009.  Following a hearing on 
October 6, 2009, Dawkins was found to have committed a VOP in 
connection with his sentence for third degree assault and was sentenced to 9 
months at Level V, effective as of September 10, 2009.   
 
(3) 
In this appeal, Dawkins claims that his VOP sentence was 
“harsh” and inappropriate.  Dawkins also claims that he has not been given 
proper credit for Level V time served and that the VOP sentencing judge 
was unfair and biased.  He requests the Court to shorten his jail time to 60 or 
90 days. 
 
(4) 
Once a defendant commits a VOP, the Superior Court has the 
authority to require him to serve the sentence originally imposed, or any 
lesser sentence.1  A VOP sentence may not exceed the term left suspended 
by a prior sentence.2 Delaware law also provides that an inmate must be 
given credit for all Level V time served in connection with a Level V 
                                                 
1 State v. Sloman, 886 A.2d 1257, 1260 (Del. 2005). 
2 Pavulak v. State, 880 A.2d 1044, 1045-46 (Del. 2005); Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, §4334(c). 
 
3 
sentence when calculating the amount of Level V time remaining on that 
sentence.3   
 
(5) 
In this case, Dawkins’ original sentence on his third degree 
assault conviction was 1 year at Level V, to be suspended for 1 year at Level 
III.  The record reflects that, prior to being sentenced, Dawkins was held in 
default of bond from March 21, 2009 until May 22, 2009.  As such, he was 
entitled to 2 months of Level V credit when he was later sentenced on the 
VOP.  The record further reflects that, in its VOP sentencing order, the 
Superior Court sentenced Dawkins to 9 months at Level V, with an effective 
date of September 10, 2009.  Because the Superior Court was authorized to 
impose a VOP sentence of as much as 10 months at Level V, effective as of 
September 10, 2009, it committed no error in sentencing Dawkins as it did.4  
We, therefore, conclude that Dawkins’ first claim is without merit.  
 
(6) 
As for Dawkins’ second claim of bias on the part of the 
sentencing judge, it is the defendant’s obligation, even if he is proceeding 
pro se, to attach to his brief those portions of the transcript as are necessary 
to give the Court a fair and accurate account of the context in which the 
                                                 
3 Gamble v. State, 728 A.2d 1171, 1172 (Del. 1999). 
4 To the extent that Dawkins seeks credit for time spent on probation, he is not entitled to 
any such credit.  Id.   
 
4 
alleged error occurred.5  We are not able to review Dawkins’ claim that the 
sentencing judge was unfair and biased because he has failed to provide the 
Court with a transcript of the VOP hearing.  We, therefore, conclude that 
Dawkins’ second claim also is unavailing.   
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
       Justice   
 
 
                                                 
5 Tricoche v. State, 525 A.2d 151, 154 (Del. 1987); Supr. Ct. R. 9(e)(ii) and 14(e).