Title: Brittingham v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
RICHARD T. BRITTINGHAM,
JR.,
Defendant Below-
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF DELAWARE,
Plaintiff Below-
Appellee.
§
§
§  No. 21, 2001
§
§
§  Court Below—Superior Court
§  of the State of Delaware,
§  in and for New Castle County
§  Cr.A. Nos. VN88-07-1175-01
§                   VN88-09-1465-01
§                   VN89-10-0731-01
§                   VN88-11-1069-01
Submitted: April 3, 2001
  Decided:   May 14, 2001
Before WALSH, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices
O R D E R
This 14th day of May 2001, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal
and the record below, it appears to the Court that:
(1)
The defendant-appellant, Richard T. Brittingham, Jr., filed this
appeal from an order of the Superior Court denying his motion to correct an
illegal sentence.  We find no merit to the appeal.  Accordingly, we AFFIRM.
(2)
In this appeal, Brittingham claims that it was an illegal
enhancement of punishment for the Superior Court to sentence him to
consecutive, rather than concurrent, sentences for a violation of probation
2
(“VOP”).  He contends that the Superior Court was bound by the terms of
the original sentencing order, which provided for concurrent sentences.
(3)
In 1990, Brittingham pleaded guilty to two counts of Receiving
Stolen Property, one count of Felony Theft and one count of Misdemeanor
Theft.  The Superior Court sentenced him to one year incarceration, to be
suspended for one year at Level II probation, on each of the four charges,
with  the probationary terms to be served concurrently.  Brittingham did not
file a direct appeal from his convictions or sentences.  In 1999, the Superior
Court found Brittingham in violation of his probation and sentenced him to 6
months incarceration on each of the four charges, to be served consecutively.
(4)
Brittingham’s claim that he was sentenced illegally is without
merit.  The Superior Court was authorized to reimpose any previously
suspended prison term when it sentenced Brittingham for a VOP.1  The
record reflects that there was a total of four years incarceration remaining on
Brittingham’s original sentences.  In its discretion, the Superior Court
sentenced him to a total of only two years incarceration.  There is no factual
support for Brittingham’s claim that the original sentencing order provided
that the incarcerative portions of his sentences were to be served
                                                          
111 Del. C. § 4334(c); Ingram v. State, Del. Supr., 567 A.2d 868, 869 (1989).
3
concurrently.  The sentencing order states that only “the non-incarcerative
portion[s]” of the sentences “shall be served concurrently.”2
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the
Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Randy J. Holland
Justice
                                                          
2Pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 3901(d), all sentences of confinement must be served
consecutively.