Title: Anderson v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
HARRY W. ANDERSON, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 663, 2010 
§ 
§   
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 0511001605 
§ 
 
Submitted: April 15, 2011 
  Decided: June 20, 2011 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and BERGER, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 20th day of June 2011, upon consideration of the parties’ briefs 
and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Harry Anderson, filed this appeal 
from the Superior Court’s imposition of sentence following his third 
violation of probation (VOP).  Anderson contends that the sentence imposed 
by the Superior Court is illegal because it exceeded the amount of time 
remaining to be served on his sentence.  After a careful review of the record, 
we find no merit to Anderson’s argument.  Nonetheless, we agree with the 
State that the Superior Court’s sentence failed to credit Anderson with 62 
days he previously served on the underlying sentence.  Accordingly, we 
 
 
-2-
conclude that this matter must be remanded to the Superior Court for further 
proceedings. 
(2) 
The record reflects that Anderson pled guilty on March 6, 2006 
to one count of second degree assault.  On May 26, 2006, the Superior Court 
sentenced Anderson to eight years at Level V incarceration, with credit for 
167 days previously served, to be suspended after serving one year at Level 
V for two years of decreasing levels of probation.  On March 9, 2007, the 
Superior Court sentenced Anderson on his first VOP, effective February 8, 
2007, to six years and six months at Level V incarceration, to be suspended 
upon the completion of a TASC1 evaluation for two years at Level IV (home 
confinement or substance abuse treatment), to be suspended after serving six 
months at Level IV for the balance to be served at Level III probation.  After 
completion of the TASC evaluation, the Superior Court modified 
Anderson’s VOP sentence by suspending the Level IV portion of his 
sentence upon successful completion of the Crest Program (rather than 
simply suspending the Level IV portion of his sentence after six months), 
with the balance of the sentence to be served at Level III Crest Aftercare. 
                                                 
1 TASC refers to the Treatment Access Center, which performs evaluations and makes recommendations 
for treatment options for offenders. 
 
 
-3-
(3) 
On November 21, 2007, the Superior Court sentenced 
Anderson on his second VOP, effective November 7, 2007, to six years at 
Level V incarceration, to be suspended for six years at Level IV work 
release, to be suspended after serving six months at Level IV work release 
for two years at Level III probation.  On September 22, 2010,2 the Superior 
Court sentenced Anderson on his third VOP, effective June 5, 2010, to six 
years at Level V incarceration, to be suspended after serving one year and 
one month at Level V for six months at Level IV work release followed by 
one year at Level III probation. It is from this sentence that Anderson 
appeals. 
(4) 
In his opening brief on appeal, Anderson contends that the 
Superior Court’s sentence for his third VOP is illegal because it ignored a 
modified sentence entered by the Superior Court on January 4, 2008, which, 
according to Anderson, reduced the overall length of his sentence to one 
year, seven months, and seven days.  Anderson is incorrect, however.  The 
Superior Court’s modified sentencing order, dated January 4, 2008, 
reimposed the exact same six-year suspended sentence set forth in the 
November 7, 2007 sentencing order.  The modified order simply eliminated 
                                                 
2 The violation report on Anderson’s third violation was filed in December 2008.  Anderson was serving a 
sentence in Pennsylvania, however, so the capias was not returned in the Delaware Superior Court until 
June 24, 2010. 
 
 
-4-
some superfluous language and also added a provision that Anderson should 
not be held at Level V for more than 45 days pending his placement at Level 
IV work release.  Accordingly, we reject Anderson’s argument on appeal. 
(5) 
It is well settled that, upon finding a defendant has violated 
probation, the Superior Court is authorized to reimpose any previously 
suspended prison term.3  In this case, the Superior Court’s September 22, 
2010 sentencing order reimposed the six year suspended sentence that was 
imposed by the Superior Court’s January 4, 2008 modified sentencing order.  
All but one year and one month of that Level V time was suspended.  
Accordingly, the Superior Court’s September 22, 2010 sentencing order did 
not impose more Level V time than remained to be served on Anderson’s 
original sentence. 
(6) 
Nonetheless, we agree with State’s contention that the Superior 
Court’s September 22, 2010 sentencing order failed to credit Anderson with 
62 days that Anderson previously spent at Level V and at the Level IV VOP 
Center while he was awaiting space at Level IV work release.  A defendant 
is entitled to receive credit toward a VOP sentence for any time spent at 
Level V on the underlying charge, including time spent at Level V awaiting 
                                                 
3 Ingram v. State, 567 A2d 868, 869 (Del. 1989) (citing DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 4334(c)). 
 
 
-5-
space in a Level IV program.4  A defendant also is entitled to credit for time 
spent at the Level IV VOP Center, 5  although the defendant is not entitled to 
credit for time spent at Level IV work release or home confinement.6 
Accordingly, we conclude that this matter must be remanded to the Superior 
Court in order to credit Anderson with 62 days he previously served on his 
sentence while awaiting space at Level IV work release.  In all other 
respects, we affirm the Superior Court’s judgment. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that this matter is 
REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this Order.  
Jurisdiction is not retained.  
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
Justice 
                                                 
4 Gamble v. State, 728 A.2d 1171, 1172 (Del. 1999). 
5 Anderson v. State, 2006 WL 3931460 (Del. Dec. 5, 2006). 
6 Gamble v. State, 728 A.2d at 1172.