Title: Hamilton v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
GEORGE L. HAMILTON,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 440, 2010 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0708037111 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
                                      Submitted: October 29, 2010 
Decided: December 17, 2010 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 17th day of December 2010, upon consideration of the briefs on 
appeal and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, George L. Hamilton, filed an appeal 
from the Superior Court’s July 2, 2010 violation of probation (“VOP”) 
sentencing order.  We find no merit to the appeal.  Accordingly, we affirm. 
 
(2) 
The record reflects that, in April 2008, Hamilton pleaded guilty 
to Theft from a Senior, Criminal Trespass in the Second Degree and 
Conspiracy in the Second Degree.  As part of the plea agreement, the State 
dismissed additional counts of theft and conspiracy as well as four counts of 
Forgery in the Second Degree.  Hamilton was sentenced on his theft 
 
2
conviction to 2 years at Level V incarceration, to be suspended after 14 days 
for the balance of the sentence at Level III probation.  On his conspiracy 
conviction, he was sentenced to 2 years at Level V, to be suspended for 1 
year at Level III.  On the trespass conviction, he was fined $50.00.  The 
Superior Court also ordered Hamilton to pay restitution.  On October 2, 
2008, at the recommendation of TASC, the Superior Court modified its 
sentencing order to provide that Hamilton would serve his suspended 
sentence at Level IV Crest rather than Level III probation. 
 
(3) 
 On July 2, 2010, Hamilton was found to have committed a 
VOP on the grounds that he had been charged in May 2010 with theft of a 
motor vehicle, he had missed scheduled visits with his probation officer and 
he had failed to report a change of address to his probation officer.  On the 
theft conviction, Hamilton was re-sentenced to 1 year and 6 months at Level 
V, to be suspended for 1 year and 6 months at Level IV work release, in turn 
to be suspended after 6 months for 1 year at Level III probation.  On the 
conspiracy conviction, he was re-sentenced to 2 years at Level V, to be 
suspended for 1 year at Level I probation.  On the trespass conviction, a fine 
again was imposed.   
 
(4) 
In this appeal from the Superior Court’s VOP sentencing order, 
Hamilton claims that his VOP sentence is excessive because he successfully 
 
3
completed the Crest Program, has no arrests for violent crimes, and has no 
drug or alcohol issues.  He contends that his sentence should be modified to 
Level V time served and half the amount of the ordered restitution.   
 
(5) 
This Court’s appellate review of a Superior Court sentencing 
order generally is limited solely to whether the sentence exceeds the 
statutory limits.1  Once a defendant commits a VOP, the Superior Court has 
the authority to require him to serve all of the Level V time remaining on his 
original sentence.2  A subsequent VOP sentence may not impose more Level 
V time than the prior sentence left suspended.3  Hamilton does not dispute 
that his original sentence was within the statutory limits.  Nor does he 
dispute that his VOP sentences were within the Superior Court’s authority to 
impose.  As such, Hamilton offers no valid basis upon which to modify his 
latest VOP sentences.  Therefore, the Superior Court’s judgment must be 
affirmed. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
 
                                                 
1 Mayes v. State, 604 A.2d 839, 842 (Del. 1992). 
2 State v. Sloman, 886 A.2d 1257, 1260 (Del. 2005); Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, §4334(c). 
3 Pavulak v. State, 880 A.2d 1044, 1045-46 (Del. 2005).