Title: Eckenrode v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 322, 2013
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: March 13, 2014

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
KRISTIE L. ECKENRODE, 
 
§  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 322, 2013 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below–Superior Court of 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
the State of Delaware in and for 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
New Castle County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
Cr. A. No. 1208020040  
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Submitted: January 17, 2014 
Decided: 
March 13, 2014 
 
Before HOLLAND, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices.  
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 13th day of March 2014, upon consideration of the parties’ briefs and 
the Superior Court record, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On October 8, 2012, the appellant, Kristie L. Eckenrode, was indicted 
on charges of Unlawful Use of a Credit Card, Theft, and Forgery in the Second 
Degree.  On January 14, 2013, Eckenrode pled guilty to Unlawful Use of a Credit 
Card and was sentenced to two years at Level V suspended for one year of 
probation. 
(2) 
In May 2013, Eckenrode was charged with violating the terms of her 
probation (“VOP”).  At a hearing on May 23, 2013, Eckenrode, through her 
counsel, admitted the violation, was adjudged guilty of VOP, and was sentenced to 
2 
 
two years at Level V suspended upon completion of inpatient drug treatment for 
probation.  This appeal followed. 
(3) 
On appeal, Eckenrode contends that her due process rights were 
violated at the VOP hearing when her probation officer reneged on a promise to 
recommend a reinstatement of probation, and the Superior Court denied her the 
opportunity to speak.  Eckenrode also claims that the VOP sentence did not 
properly credit her with time she spent incarcerated in October and November 
2012. 
(4) 
Having carefully considered the parties’ positions on appeal, the Court 
concludes that none of Eckenrode’s claims has merit.  The record does not support 
Eckenrode’s due process claims.  The transcript reflects that the probation officer 
felt constrained to recommend inpatient drug treatment for Eckenrode.  It also 
reflects that Eckenrode directly addressed the Superior Court and was not 
precluded from speaking further at the hearing. 
(5) 
In response to Eckenrode’s claim that she is entitled to credit for time 
she spent incarcerated in October and November 2012, the State has included in its 
appendix a “Delaware Department of Correction Level 5 Time Served Report,” 
which indicates that Eckenrode received credit for that period of time from the 
3 
 
Court of Common Pleas in a VOP sentence imposed in a different case.  Eckenrode 
is not entitled to credit for time served against more than one sentence.* 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                          
 
* See Villafane v. State, 2013 WL 85194 (Del. Jan. 7, 2013) (citing Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 
3901(c),(d)).