Title: Allen v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
MARQUISE T. ALLEN, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 426, 2022 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§ 
§  Cr. ID Nos. 2104015672,  
§  2010008959, 1503017857A (N) 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:  September 15, 2023 
 
 
 
 
Decided:     November 2, 2023 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and GRIFFITHS, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 
 
Upon consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal, it appears 
to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Marquise T. Allen, filed this appeal from his sentencing 
for a violation of probation (“VOP”).  We affirm the Superior Court’s finding that 
Allen violated the terms of his probation and the amount of unsuspended Level V 
time imposed for the VOP.  Because the sentencing order does not credit Allen for 
all of the Level V time he previously served, we remand this matter to the Superior 
Court for correction of the sentencing order. 
(2) 
In January 2016, Allen pleaded guilty to attempted first-degree assault, 
possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (“PFDCF”), and first-
2 
 
degree reckless endangering in Criminal ID No. 150301857A.  The Superior Court 
sentenced Allen as follows:  
 for attempted first-degree assault, effective March 28, 2015, ten years 
of Level V incarceration, suspended after two years for decreasing 
levels of supervision;  
 
 for PFDCF, three years of Level V incarceration; and  
 for first-degree reckless endangering, five years of Level V 
incarceration, suspended for two years of Level III probation.   
 
On December 3, 2019, the Superior Court denied Allen’s motion for sentence 
modification. 
(3) 
In February 2021, Allen was charged with carrying a concealed deadly 
weapon (“CCDW”) in Criminal ID No. 2010008959.  He was also charged with 
violating his probation in Criminal ID No. 150301857A.  After Allen pleaded guilty 
to CCDW and admitted to the VOP, the Superior Court sentenced Allen as follows:  
 for CCDW, effective October 18, 2020, eight years of Level V 
incarceration, suspended after three months for decreasing levels of 
supervision;  
 
 for attempted first-degree assault, ten years of Level V incarceration, 
suspended after three months for decreasing levels of supervision; and  
 
 for first-degree reckless endangering, five years of Level V 
incarceration, suspended for two years of Level III supervision. 
 
(4) 
In December 2021, Allen was charged with escape after conviction in 
Criminal ID No. 2104015672.  He was also charged with violating his probation in 
3 
 
Criminal ID Nos. 150301857A and 2010008959.  After Allen pleaded guilty to 
escape after conviction and admitted to the VOP, the Superior Court sentenced Allen 
as follows:   
 for escape after conviction, effective September 1, 2021, eight years of 
Level V incarceration, suspended after three months for eighteen 
months of Level III GPS;  
 
 for CCDW, effective September 1, 2021, eight years of Level V 
incarceration, suspended after three months for eighteen months of 
Level III GPS;  
 
 for attempted first-degree assault, ten years of Level V incarceration, 
suspended after three months for eighteen months of Level III GPS; and  
 
 for first-degree reckless endangering, five years of Level V 
incarceration, suspended for eighteen months of Level III GPS.   
 
(5) 
In September 2022, the Department of Correction requested issuance 
of a capias for Allen’s VOP.  The VOP report alleged that Allen had, among other 
things, cut off his GPS anklet and absconded from probation.     
(6) 
After a hearing on October 8, 2022, the Superior Court found that Allen 
had violated his probation.  The Superior Court sentenced Allen as follows:   
 for escape after conviction, eight years of Level V incarceration, 
suspended after three months;  
 
 for CCDW, seven years and nine months of Level V incarceration, 
suspended after six months for six months of Level IV DOC discretion;  
 
 for attempted first-degree assault, effective September 20, 2022, nine 
years and nine months of Level V incarceration, suspended after six 
months for twelve months of Level III GPS; and  
4 
 
 
 for first-degree reckless endangering, five years of Level V 
incarceration, suspended after three months for one year of Level III 
GPS.   
 
(7) 
On appeal, Allen argues that he was mentally incapable at the time of 
the VOP hearing, the VOP sentence was excessive, and he should have received a 
mental health evaluation and been sentenced to mental health probation.   
(8) 
We find no merit to Allen’s claims.  In a VOP hearing, unlike a criminal 
trial, the State is only required to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the 
defendant violated the terms of probation.1   A preponderance of the evidence means 
“some competent evidence” to prove the violation asserted.2   At the VOP hearing, 
Allen admitted that he had violated his probation by, among other things, cutting off 
his GPS anklet and absconding from probation.  Allen’s admissions constituted 
sufficient competent evidence to revoke his probation.3   
(9) 
Contrary to Allen’s contention that he was mentally incapable at the 
time of the VOP hearing, the hearing transcript reflects that Allen understood and 
actively participated in the proceeding.  He said that he had not been in the right state 
of mind recently due to family issues, including the death of his father, but did not 
 
1 Kurzmann v. State, 903 A.2d 702, 716 (Del. 2006). 
2 Brown v. State, 249 A.2d 269, 272 (Del. 1968). 
3 Collins v. State, 897 A.2d 159, 161 (Del. 2006). 
5 
 
refer to any of the mental health conditions identified in his opening brief.  There is 
no indication in the record that Allen was incompetent to admit to his VOP.4   
(10) Turning to Allen’s challenges to his sentence, “[i]t is well-established 
that appellate review of sentences is extremely limited.”5 Our review of a sentence 
generally ends upon a determination that the sentence is within the statutory limits 
prescribed by the legislature. 6  If the sentence falls within the statutory limits, “we 
consider only whether it is based on factual predicates which are false, 
impermissible, or lack minimal reliability, judicial vindictiveness or bias, or a closed 
mind.”7  Once Allen committed a VOP, the Superior Court could impose any period 
of incarceration up to and including the balance of the Level V time remaining on 
Allen’s sentence.8   
(11) The eighteen months of unsuspended Level V time imposed for Allen’s 
VOP does not exceed the Level V time remaining on his sentences and was within 
statutory limits.  The hearing transcript reflects that the Superior Court’s carefully 
considered Allen’s arguments in support of a six-month Level V sentence with no 
probation to follow, but concluded that Allen’s removal of his GPS anklet and 
 
4 See, e.g., Alvarado v. State, 2023 WL 228432, at *2 (Del. Jan. 17, 2023) (rejecting the 
defendant’s claims of incompetency in his VOP appeal where the transcripts reflected that the 
defendant understood and actively participated in the proceedings). 
5 Kurzmann, 903 A.2d at 714. 
6 Mayes v. State, 604 A.2d 839, 842 (Del. 1992). 
7 Kurzmann, 903 A.2d at 714. 
8 11 Del. C. § 4334(c); Pavulak v. State, 880 A.2d 1044, 1046 (Del. 2005). 
6 
 
history of VOPs merited a lengthier Level V sentence with probation.  Allen 
identifies nothing to suggest that the Superior Court sentenced him on the basis of 
factual predicates that were false, impermissible, or lacked minimal reliability, 
judicial vindictiveness or bias, or a closed mind.  Allen’s contention that he should 
have received a mental health evaluation and been sentenced to mental health 
probation, neither of which he requested at the VOP hearing, is also without merit.     
(12) “A defendant is entitled to Level V credit time for time previously 
served on an underlying charge or at a Level IV VOP Center.”9  As the State laudably 
concedes, the October 8, 2022 VOP sentencing order does not credit Allen for Level 
V time he previously served for his escape after conviction, CCDW, and attempted 
first-degree assault convictions.  According to the State, the amount of Level V time 
imposed for those convictions should be corrected as follows: 
 for escape after conviction, seven years and nine months of Level V 
incarceration, not eight years as imposed in the October 8, VOP 
sentencing order; 
 
 for CCDW, seven years and six months of Level V incarceration, 
not seven years and nine months as imposed in the October 8, 2022 
VOP sentencing order; and  
 
 for attempted first-degree assault, seven years and six months of 
Level V incarceration, not nine years and nine months as imposed 
in the October 8, 2022 VOP sentencing order. 
 
 
9 Rivera v. State, 2014 WL 2093709, at *3 (Del. May 15, 2014). 
7 
 
We agree.  This matter shall be remanded for the Superior Court to correct the total 
amount of Level V time imposed in the October 8, 2022 VOP sentencing order for 
Allen’s escape after conviction, CCDW, and attempted first-degree assault 
convictions.  Otherwise, the Superior Court’s judgment is affirmed.    
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court, insofar as it pertains to the finding of a violation of probation and the amount 
of unsuspended Level V time imposed, is AFFIRMED.  The matter is remanded to 
the Superior Court for corrective action consistent with this Order.  Jurisdiction is 
not retained. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
       Chief Justice