Title: Revel v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
RAY A. REVEL,
§
§
No. 234, 2005
Defendant Below,
§
Appellant,
§
Court Below--Superior Court 
§
of the State of Delaware in and 
v.
§
for Sussex County in Cr. A. 
§
Nos. S97-03-0076I and S00-
STATE OF DELAWARE,
§
03-0275I, 0282.
§
Plaintiff Below,
§
Def. ID Nos. 9702009875
Appellee.
§
 0002014354
Submitted: June 20, 2005
Decided:
September 16, 2005
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices.
O R D E R
This 16  day of September 2005, upon consideration of the appellant’s
th
opening brief and the appellee’s motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme Court
Rule 25(a), it appears to the Court that:
(1)
The appellant, Ray A. Revel, filed an appeal from the Superior
Court’s order dated May 23, 2005, denying his motion for correction of
sentence.  The appellee, State of Delaware, has moved to affirm the judgment
of the Superior Court on the ground that it is manifest on the face of the
opening brief that the appeal is without merit.  We agree and affirm.
State v. Revel, Del. Super., ID No. 9606015927, Graves, J. (Nov. 22, 1996) (ORDER).
1
Thereafter, Revel was adjudged guilty of VOP and sentenced in May 1997, June 1997, and
September 1998.  In December 1999, Revel was adjudged guilty of VOP and remained
subject to the previous sentence imposed.
State v. Revel, Del. Super., ID No. 9702009875, Graves, J. (June 20, 1997) (ORDER).
2
Revel’s sentence was amended in March 1998.  He was adjudged guilty of VOP in
December 1999 and remained subject to the previous sentence imposed.
State v. Revel, Del. Super., ID No. 9708000002, Graves, J. (Aug. 8, 1997) (ORDER).  Revel
3
was adjudged guilty of VOP in December 1999 and remained subject to the previous
sentence imposed.
State v. Revel, Del. Super., ID No. 9806008658, Lee, J. (Sept. 11, 1998) (ORDER).  Revel’s
4
sentence was amended in July 1999 and modified in September 1999 and October 1999.  In
December 1999, Revel was adjudged guilty of VOP and remained subject to the previous
sentence imposed.
State v. Revel, Del. Super., ID No. 9808019100, Graves, J. (Aug. 28, 1998) (ORDER).  In
5
December 1999, Revel was adjudged guilty of VOP and remained subject to the previous
sentence imposed. 
2
(2)
Revel has a long history of criminal convictions and related
adjudications of violation of probation (VOP) in Delaware.  In 1996, Revel
pleaded guilty in the Superior Court and was sentenced on charges of
Possession of Burglary Tools and Criminal Mischief.   In 1997, Revel pleaded
1
guilty in the Superior Court and was sentenced on a charge of Burglary in the
Third Degree.   In August 1997,  Revel pleaded guilty and was sentenced on a
2
charge of Driving Under the Influence (DUI).   One year later,  Revel pleaded
3
guilty and was sentenced on another charge of DUI.   In September 1998,
4
 Revel pleaded guilty and was sentenced on charges of Possession/Use of a
Controlled Substance and Resisting Arrest.  
5
State v. Revel, Del. Super., ID No. 0002014354, Stokes, J. (Sept. 7, 2000) (ORDER).  
6
3
(3)
In March 2000, Revel was adjudged guilty of VOP in each of the
above-referenced cases.  In the third degree burglary and the two DUI cases
(“DUI/burglary”), the Superior Court sentenced Revel to a total of six and one-
half years at Level V, suspended after one year for one year at Level IV work
release, followed by thirty months at Level III.  In the possession of burglary
tools and possession/use of a controlled substance cases, the Superior Court
discharged Revel as unimproved from the VOP sentences that he was serving
at the time in those cases.
(4)
In September 2000, Revel pleaded guilty on charges of DUI and
Escape in the Third Degree (“DUI/escape”) and was sentenced to a total of six
years at Level V, suspended after nine months for one year at a Level IV
residential substance abuse treatment program.   In September 2001, Revel was
6
adjudged guilty of VOP and was resentenced.  In January 2002, Revel was
again adjudged guilty of VOP and was sentenced to a total of four years and ten
months at Level V. 
(5)
In May 2005, Revel filed a motion for correction of sentence
pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a).  Revel filed the motion when
he realized that he would be required to complete the balance of the March
4
2000 VOP sentence in the DUI/burglary cases ( i.e., one year at Level IV work
release, followed by thirty months at Level III) after completing the Level V
sentence imposed at the January 2002 VOP proceeding in the DUI/escape case.
Revel argued that it was a violation of due process to require him to serve the
balance of the DUI/burglary VOP sentence, and that the Superior Court should
have discharged that sentence upon Revel’s subsequent adjudication of VOP
in the DUI/escape case.  Revel also argued that he was entitled to be discharged
as unimproved from the balance of the DUI/burglary VOP sentence because he
is physically incapable of completing the requirements of Level IV work
release.
(6)
On appeal from the Superior Court’s May 23, 2005 denial of his
motion for correction of sentence, Revel reiterates the claims that he advanced
in his motion.  Revel also argues that the Superior Court erred when it treated
his motion as a motion for modification pursuant to Superior Court Criminal
Rule 35(b).
(7)
It is clear that the Superior Court did not err when it treated
Revel’s motion as a motion for modification.  Revel’s motion included a
request that the Superior Court discharge the balance of the DUI/burglary VOP
See, e.g., Hassett v. State, 2004 WL 2743423 (Del. Supr.) (affirming denial of Rule 35(b)
7
motion to reduce or modify sentence filed on the basis of medical infirmity); Vander Hoeven
v. State, 2002 WL 972235 (Del. Supr.) (affirming denial of Rule 35(b) motion for
modification of sentence filed on the basis of personal hardship).
Somerville v. State, 703 A.2d 629, 631 (Del. 1997) (citing Murphy v. State, 632 A.2d 1150,
8
1152-53 (Del. 1993)).
Perry v. State, 741 A.2d 359, 362 (Del. 1999) (quoting Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 4333).
9
5
sentence due to his physical limitations.   Moreover, because Revel did not
7
argue in his opening brief that the Superior Court abused its discretion when
denying his request for a sentence modification, he has waived this Court’s
consideration of that claim on appeal.  
8
(8)
Revel’s motion also sought  to “correct” the Superior Court’s
alleged failure to discharge the DUI/burglary VOP sentence when adjudicating
Revel guilty of VOP in the DUI/escape case.  Revel’s claim of error is without
merit.  “The Superior Court has broad authority to terminate probationary
sentences ‘at any time.’”  The Superior Court was not required to exercise its
9
authority to discharge Revel as unimproved from the unexpired DUI/burglary
VOP sentence.  Rather, upon completion of the Level V incarceration imposed
in January 2002 in the DUI/escape case, Revel was released to the next highest
See SENTAC Benchbook, Statement of Policy, No. 19 at 68 (2005) (providing that when
10
an offender is released from incarceration “the release will be to the next highest level
specified by the court, or by statute, for any unserved sentence, or portion thereof”).
6
level, i.e., Level IV work release, to begin serving the balance of the unserved
DUI/burglary VOP sentence.10
(9)
It is manifest on the face of Revel’s opening brief that this appeal
is without merit.  The issues presented are clearly controlled by settled
Delaware law.  To the extent that judicial discretion is implicated, clearly there
was no abuse of discretion.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Supreme Court
Rule 25(a), the State’s motion to affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment of the
Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Randy J. Holland
Justice