Title: Hackett v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
VICTOR HACKETT, 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 707, 2014 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below—Superior Court  
 
 
 
 
 
  
§ 
the State of Delaware in and for 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
New Castle County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
Cr. ID No. 0609019128 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Submitted: May 8, 2015 
Decided: 
July 21, 2015 
 
Before HOLLAND, VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 21st day of July 2015, having considered the parties’ briefs on appeal 
and the Superior Court record, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Victor Hackett, filed this appeal from the Superior 
Court’s order dated December 9, 2014 denying his motion for correction of 
sentence under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a) (“Rule 35(a)”).  The Court 
concludes that the judgment must be reversed and this matter remanded for further 
proceedings. 
(2) 
The record reflects that Hackett entered a guilty plea in December 
2006 to one count of Possession with Intent to Deliver Cocaine (“PWIDC”).  
Hackett agreed to be sentenced as a habitual offender under 11 Del. C. § 4214(a) 
2 
 
(“Section 4214(a)”).1  A sentence imposed under Section 4214(a) must “not be less 
than the statutory maximum penalty” for the offense and must be “served in its 
entirety at a full custodial Level V.”2  A sentence under Section 4214(a) cannot be 
suspended.3 
(3) 
When pleading guilty, Hackett acknowledged that the Superior Court 
was required to impose no fewer than fifteen years at Level V, the statutory 
maximum for PWIDC.  In exchange for the plea, State agreed to drop other 
charges and to recommend that the Superior Court impose no more than fifteen 
years at Level V. 
(4) 
On February 16, 2007, the Superior Court sentenced Hackett to fifteen 
years of Level V incarceration under Section 4214(a) (hereinafter “the Sentence”).  
When doing so, the Superior Court imposed twenty years at Level V suspended 
after fifteen years for five years at Level IV halfway house in-patient substance 
abuse treatment suspended after nine months for eighteen months at Level III 
probation.  Hackett did not appeal the Sentence. 
                                          
 
1 11 Del. C. § 4214(a) 
2 Id. 
3 Id. 
3 
 
(5) 
Between March 2007 and June 2014, Hackett filed a series of 
unsuccessful motions for correction or reduction of sentence.4  On May 7, 2010, 
the Superior Court modified the Sentence to give Hackett thirteen days of credit 
time. 
(6) 
In November 2014, Hackett filed a motion for correction of sentence 
under Rule 35(a).  Hackett claimed that the suspended portion of the Sentence 
violated Section 4214(a), and he asked the Superior Court to correct the Sentence 
and impose fifteen years at Level V with “nothing to follow.”  The Superior Court 
construed the motion as a motion for reduction of sentence under Superior Court 
Criminal Rule 35(b) (“Rule 35(b)”) and denied the motion as repetitive and 
untimely filed.5  This appeal followed. 
(7) 
On appeal, the parties agree that the Superior Court abused its 
discretion when it construed Hackett’s sentence correction motion as a motion for 
reduction of sentence and denied the motion as repetitive and untimely.  Also, the 
parties agree that the suspended portion of the Sentence violates Section 4214(a) 
and should be corrected.  The parties disagree how the Sentence should be 
corrected. 
                                          
 
4 In the one instance when Hackett appealed the denial of a Rule 35(a) motion, this Court 
affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment.  Hackett v. State, 2008 WL 2192164 (Del. May 28, 
2008). 
5 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b).  Under Rule 35(b), a motion for reduction of sentence must be 
filed within ninety days of the imposition of sentence.  The court will not consider repetitive 
requests for reduction of sentence. 
4 
 
(8) 
Hackett argues that the Sentence should be corrected to remove the 
five years at Level V that were suspended for Levels IV and III.  According to 
Hackett, when he has fully served fifteen years at Level V, he is entitled to be 
released from the sentence with “nothing to follow.”  The State argues that a 
fifteen-year sentence at Level V followed by no transition period would violate the 
requirements of 11 Del. C.  § 4204(l) (“Section 4204(l)”).6  The State recommends 
that Hackett should be resentenced to fifteen years at Level V under Section 
4214(a) followed by nine months at Level IV halfway house in-patient substance 
abuse treatment and eighteen months at Level III probation under Section 4204(l). 
(9) 
The Court agrees with the parties that the Superior Court abused its 
discretion when it denied Hackett’s sentence correction motion as untimely and 
repetitive under Rule 35(b).  An illegal sentence can be corrected “at any time.”7  
Also, the Court agrees that the suspended portion of the Sentence is in violation of 
Section 4214(a) and must be corrected, and that the corrected sentence must 
include a transition period under Section 4204(l).8 
(10) When the Superior Court imposes a sentence consisting of Level V 
time with decreasing levels of supervision, each component of the sentence is 
                                          
 
6 See 11 Del. C. § 4204(l) (requiring that a Level V sentence of one year or more must include a 
transition period at either Level IV, III or II for a period of not less than six months). 
7 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(a). 
8 Nave v. State, 783 A.2d 120, 122 (Del. 2001) (“The need for transition from prison back to 
society is even more apparent in the case of a habitual offender.”). 
5 
 
integral to the overall sentencing plan.9  “The interpretation of a sentence order 
should, whenever possible, give effect to the Superior Court’s intent.”10  In this 
case, the Court agrees that a corrected sentence imposing fifteen years at Level V 
under Section 4214(a) followed by nine months at Level IV halfway house in-
patient substance abuse treatment and eighteen months at Level III probation 
would be consistent with the original sentencing plan and comply with Section 
4214(a) and Section 4204(l). 
(11) The Court will vacate the Sentence and direct the Superior Court to 
conduct a new sentencing proceeding.  Hackett and his defense counsel should 
receive notice of and attend the proceeding.11     
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Superior Court judgment 
on appeal is REVERSED.  The sentence imposed on February 16, 2007 and 
modified on May 7, 2010 is VACATED.  This matter is REMANDED to the 
Superior Court for further proceedings consistent with this Order.  Jurisdiction is 
not retained.     
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                          
 
9 Defoe v. State, 750 A.2d 1200, 1202 (Del. 2000). 
10 Green v. State, 2010 WL 2278251, at *2 (Del. June 7, 2010) (citing Nave v. State, 783 A.2d 
120, 123 (Del. 2001)). 
11 Jones v. State, 672 A.2d 554, 556 (Del. 1996).