Title: Howard v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JERMAINE HOWARD,  
§ 
§ 
Defendant Below,  
§ 
Appellant,  
 
§ No. 69, 2002 
§ 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ Court Below: Superior Court 
§ of the State of Delaware in and 
STATE OF DELAWARE  
§ for New Castle County 
§ Cr. ID. No. 9812004444 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
§ 
Appellee. 
 
 
§ 
 
Submitted: September 24, 2002 
Decided: 
October 2, 2002 
 
Before WALSH, HOLLAND, and BERGER, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 2nd day of October 2002, upon consideration of the briefs of the parties 
it appears that: 
(1) 
In this appeal from the Superior Court the appellant, Jermaine Howard 
(“Howard”), contends that the Superior Court erred in determining that he violated his 
probation and in not giving Howard credit for time served in the Boot Camp Program 
operated by the Department of Correction.  We find no merit to either contention and 
affirm. 
(2) 
Although Howard claims that he was not fully informed of the nature of 
the violations in advance of the hearing, Howard, represented by counsel, did not 
 
 
2 
complain of lack of knowledge of the specifics of the probation violations and was able 
to dispute the merits of the violations claims.  Thus, Howard is unable to establish that 
he was prejudiced by the lack of advance knowledge of the specific nature of the 
violations. 
(3) 
Howard next claims that the Superior Court, in sentencing him for 
probation violation, did not give him credit for the time that he spent in Boot Camp.  
The Superior Court’s sentencing decision was mandated by the provisions of 11 Del. C. 
§ 6712 which provides that no credit time shall be given for any time spent in Boot 
Camp, in the event of a violation of the conditions of the terms of the defendant’s post 
boot camp supervision.  Although Howard claims that the statute is unconstitutional, 
we note that Howard’s entry in the boot camp was voluntary and he was charged with 
knowledge of the consequences of his failure to complete his probation.  In Whitner v. 
State, 762 A.2d 18 (Del. 2000) this Court recognized the application of the forfeiture 
provisions of 11 Del. C. § 6712.  Although we did not address the constitutionality of 
the statute, given the voluntary nature of participation in the program, we fail to 
understand how its application can be considered arbitrary or a denial of equal 
protection.  All offenders are treated equally under the statute and Howard makes no 
claim that he was accorded separate and unjustified treatment by the Superior Court.  
 
 
3 
Accordingly, we find his claim of unconstitutionality completely lacking in merit. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court be, and the same hereby is, 
AFFIRMED. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
   s/Joseph T. Walsh 
    Justice