Title: Zecca v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ROCCO ZECCA, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 140, 2002 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr.A. No. VN97-10-1752-01 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: July 3, 2002 
 
 
 
 
  Decided:   August 9, 2002 
 
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and STEELE, Justices 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 9th day of August 2002, upon consideration of the appellant’s brief filed 
pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 26(c), his attorney’s motion to withdraw, and the 
State’s response thereto, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
On September 11, 2001, the defendant-appellant, Rocco Zecca, was 
found to be in violation of probation (“VOP”).  The Superior Court revoked his 
probation and reimposed a sentence of 3 years incarceration at Level V,1 with 
credit for 1 year previously served, to be followed by 6 months at Level III 
probation.  Zecca did not appeal the finding of a VOP or his sentence, but did file 
                                                          
 
1This was a minimum mandatory sentence for a drug trafficking conviction.  DEL. CODE ANN. tit 
16, § 4753A (1995).   
 
2
several motions for sentence modification and a petition for a writ of habeas 
corpus, all of which were denied by the Superior Court.  The Superior Court’s 
March 4, 2002 denial of Zecca’s motion for sentence modification is the subject of 
the instant appeal.   
   
(2) 
Zecca’s trial counsel has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw 
pursuant to Rule 26(c).  The standard and scope of review applicable to the 
consideration of a motion to withdraw and an accompanying brief under Rule 
26(c) is twofold: (a) the Court must be satisfied that defense counsel has made a 
conscientious examination of the record and the law for claims that could arguably 
support the appeal; and (b) the Court must conduct its own review of the record 
and determine whether the appeal is so totally devoid of at least arguably 
appealable issues that it can be decided without an adversary presentation.2  
 
(3) 
Zecca’s counsel asserts that, based upon a careful and complete 
examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable issues.  By letter, 
Zecca’s counsel informed Zecca of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided him 
with a copy of the motion to withdraw, the accompanying brief and the complete 
hearing transcript.  Zecca was also informed of his right to supplement his 
attorney’s presentation.  Zecca responded with a brief that raises one issue for this 
Court’s consideration.  The State has responded to the position taken by Zecca’s 
 
3
counsel as well as the issue raised by Zecca and has moved to affirm the Superior 
Court’s judgment.  
 
(4) 
Zecca raises one issue for this Court’s consideration.  He claims that 
the Superior Court should have credited him with an additional 6 months of Level 
V time on his VOP sentence based upon the time he spent in boot camp.   
 
(5) 
The transcript of the VOP hearing reflects that Zecca was sentenced 
originally on December 22, 1998 pursuant to the statute governing the first 
offender boot camp diversion program.3  He successfully completed the 6-month 
boot camp program, but committed a number of new violations while in boot camp 
aftercare.  At the VOP hearing, the Superior Court explained to Zecca that he was 
entitled to credit for the approximately year-long period he waited to enter the boot 
camp program, but was not entitled to credit for the 6 months he actually spent in 
boot camp.     
 
(6) 
Zecca’s claim that he is entitled to an additional 6 months credit for 
the time he spent at boot camp is without merit.  Pursuant to the boot camp 
diversion program statute, the Superior Court is mandated to reimpose the 
defendant’s entire deferred sentence upon a finding of a VOP.4  Moreover, the 
                                                                                                                                                                                           
2Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 U.S. 
429, 442 (1988); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). 
3DEL. CODE ANN. tit 11, § 6712(d) (1)-(5).  
4ID. 
 
4
statute clearly states that “[n]o credit time shall be given for any time spent in boot 
camp, Level IV or Level III” and, furthermore, that any sentence in violation of 
this provision will constitute an illegal sentence.5  
 
(7) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded that 
Zecca’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable 
issue.  We are also satisfied that Zecca’s counsel has made a conscientious effort to 
examine the record and has properly determined that Zecca could not raise a 
meritorious claim in this appeal. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to affirm is 
GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.  The motion to 
withdraw is moot. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
__Myron T. Steele___________________ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice          
                                                          
 
5DEL. CODE ANN. tit 11, § 6710(c), which permits a credit for time spent at boot camp, does not 
apply to a sentence such as Zecca’s, which was deferred pursuant to the boot camp diversion 
program.  Whitner v. State, 762 A.2d 18, 19 (Del. 2000).