Title: Celli v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
MATTHEW CELLI, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 7, 2013 
§   
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 1206004517 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: June 7, 2013 
Decided: 
June 28, 2013 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 28th day of June 2013, upon consideration of the parties’ briefs and the 
record on appeal, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The appellant, Matthew Celli, filed this appeal from his sentencing 
following the Superior Court’s finding that he had violated the terms of his 
probation.  After careful consideration, we find no merit to most of the arguments 
Celli raises on appeal.  Nonetheless, it appears that the Superior Court did not 
properly credit Celli with all of the time he previously served at Level V 
incarceration.  Accordingly, while we affirm the Superior Court’s VOP finding and 
sentence, we remand with instructions for the Superior Court to correct Celli’s 
sentence to properly credit him with time previously served. 
 
2
 
(2) 
The record reflects that Celli pled guilty on October 1, 2012 to one 
count of Possession of Shoplifting Tools, a felony, and one count of Shoplifting, a 
misdeameanor.  The Superior Court immediately sentenced him, effective June 29, 
2012, to a total period of four years at Level 5 incarceration, to be suspended 
immediately for eighteen months at Level III probation.  He was released from 
custody on October 2, 2012.  In November 2012, he was charged with violating 
probation, among other reasons, for testing positive for drug use and for failing to 
report to his probation officer.  On December 14, 2012, the Superior Court found 
Celli in violation of the terms of his probation and sentenced him, effective 
November 29, 2012, to a total period of four years at Level V incarceration, to be 
suspended upon successful completion of the Key Program for two years at Level 
IV (Crest), to be suspended upon successful completion of the Crest Program for 
eighteen months at Level III probation.  This appeal followed. 
 
(3) 
In his opening brief on appeal, Celli does not challenge the Superior 
Court’s finding that he violated the terms of his probation.  Instead, Celli contends 
that the Superior Court abused its discretion by sentencing him to prison time and 
the Key Program for his first violation of probation.  Celli also asserts that the 
Superior Court did not properly credit him with all time previously served at Level 
V.   
 
3
 
(4) 
We find no merit to Celli’s first argument.  In Delaware, once a 
violation of probation is established, the sentencing court has discretion to require 
the probationer to serve the original sentence imposed or any lesser sentence.1  If 
the sentence is within statutory limits, the sentence will not be disturbed on appeal 
unless the defendant can establish that the sentencing judge relied on 
impermissible factors or exhibited a closed mind.2  In this case, Celli’s original 
sentence was suspended entirely.  There is nothing in the record to reflect that the 
sentencing judge at the VOP hearing relied on impermissible factors or exhibited a 
closed mind in sentencing Celli.  Accordingly, we find no error or abuse in the 
Superior Court’s decision to reimpose the entire unserved balanced of Celli’s 
original sentence to be suspended upon completion of the Key Program.  To the 
extent Celli complains that the Key Program is not the right program for him, a 
defendant has no right to be sentenced to a particular rehabilitation program.3  
Thus, we reject Celli’s first argument on appeal. 
 
(5) 
With respect to Celli’s contention that the Superior Court’s VOP 
sentence failed to credit him with all time previously served at Level V, we 
conclude that this matter must be remanded to the Superior Court for a 
determination of that issue.  A defendant is entitled to Level V credit for all time 
                                                 
1 State v. Sloman, 886 A.2d 1257, 1260 (Del. 2005) (citing DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 4334(c)). 
2 Weston v. State, 832 A.2d 742, 746 (Del. 2003). 
3 Deshields v. State, 2012 WL 1072298 (Mar. 30, 2012). 
 
4
served at Level V incarceration.4  In this case, it does not appear that Celli received 
credit for all time he was held awaiting adjudication of his original charges.  While 
some of the time may be attributable to another sentence he was serving, for which 
he would not be entitled to credit, the State concedes that Celli is entitled to at least 
some credit toward his current sentence.  Accordingly, this matter must be 
remanded to the Superior Court for the issuance of a new sentencing order that 
gives Celli credit for any time he previously spent at Level V on his current 
sentence. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court’s VOP adjudication and sentence is AFFIRMED.  The matter is 
REMANDED to the Superior Court, however, to enter a modified sentencing order 
crediting Celli with all time previously served at Level V.  Jurisdiction is not 
retained. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                                 
4 DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 3901(b) (2007).