IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY

)

STATE OF DELAWARE )

) I.D. No. 1204019391

v. ) 1205020519

)

KEVIN L. PRIEST )

)

Defendant )

Submitted: August 1, 2014

Decided: October 6, 2014

On Defendant’s Motion to Have Concurrent Sentence of Imprisonment 

Imposed.

DENIED.

ORDER

Matthew B. Frawley, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Department of 

Justice, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for the State

Kevin L. Priest, Smyrna, Delaware, pro se

COOCH, R.J.

This 6th day of October, 2014, upon consideration of Defendant’s 

Motion to Have Concurrent Sentence of Imprisonment Imposed, it appears 

to the Court that:

1. Defendant Kevin L. Priest pled guilty to two counts of drug 

dealing in July 2012. In September 2012, Defendant was 

sentenced as a habitual offender to a total of 9 years at Level V, 

suspended after 5 years for eighteen months at Level IV, 
2

suspended after six months with the balance to be served on 

Level III probation.1

2. Defendant filed a Motion for Correction of Sentence in 

November 2013, requesting that this allow him to serve a 

portion of his sentence on work release after completion of a 

treatment program.

2 That motion was subsequently denied by 

this Court.3

3. Defendant filed the instant “Motion of a Formal Letter,” on 

August 1, 2014. In his filing, Defendant requests, pursuant to 

the amendments to 11 Del. C. 3901, that this Court amend his 

sentence and allow his two sentences to run concurrently, rather 

than consecutively.4

4. As amended, Section 3901(d) provides in part: “The court shall 

direct whether the sentence of confinement of any criminal 

defendant by any court of this State shall be made to run 

concurrently or consecutively with any other sentence of 

confinement imposed on such criminal defendant.”5

5. Delaware case law is well settled on this point, and provides 

that “a law will not be construed as retroactive unless the Act 

clearly, by express language or necessary implication, indicates 

that the legislature intended a retroactive application.”6

 1 See Docket #16 (Sept. 21, 2012). On the first count, Defendant was sentenced to three 

years at Level V with credit for eighty-eight days served. On the second count, Defendant 

was sentenced to six years at Level V, suspended after two years for eighteen months at 

level V, suspended after six months for the balance to be served on Level III probation. 

2 See Def.’s Motion for Correction of Sentence at 1. 

3 See Docket #18 (Nov. 13, 2013); Docket #19 (Nov. 18, 2013).

4 Def.’s Motion at 1. H.B. 312, the source of the authority that Defendant argues gives 

this court the ability to revise his sentences, amends 11 Del. C. 3901 in part. 

5 11 Del. C. § 3901(d). 

6 State v. Ismaaeel, 840 A.2d 644 (Del. Super. 2004) (quoting State v. Nixon, 46 A.2d 

874, 875 (Del. Gen. Sess. 1946)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
3

6. This Court finds that Section 3901(d), as amended does not 

have retroactive effect.7 As a result, Defendant’s September 

2012 sentences on the two counts of drug dealing to which he 

pled guilty cannot be revisited under 3901(d). 

Therefore, Defendant’s Motion to Have Concurrent Sentence of 

Imprisonment Imposed is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 _______________________

Richard R. Cooch, R.J.

cc: Prothonotary

Investigative Services 

Matthew B. Frawley, Esquire

Kevin L. Priest

 7 See State v. Jennings, 2014 WL 3943089, at *1 (Del. Super. Aug. 11, 2014) (finding 

“Section 3901(d), as amended, was not intended by the Delaware General Assembly to 

have a retroactive effect.”).