Title: Smith v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 598, 2006
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: June 5, 2007

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JAY T. SMITH, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 598, 2006 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0508020377 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: April 13, 2007 
 
  
 
          Decided:    June 5, 2007 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 5th day of June 2007, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal 
and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Jay T. Smith, filed an appeal from the 
Superior Court’s October 20, 2006 order denying his motion for 
postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.  We find 
no merit to the appeal.  Accordingly, we affirm.1   
 
(2) 
Smith pleaded guilty to Robbery in the Second Degree.  On 
March 28, 2006, he was sentenced to three years at Level V, to be suspended 
                                                 
1 On March 23, 2007, after briefing was complete, Smith also filed a motion to compel 
seeking transcripts from the State. 
 
2
immediately for two years at Level IV home confinement or work release, in 
turn to be suspended after six months for eighteen months at Level III.  The 
sentencing order specified that Smith was to be held at the Level IV VOP 
Center until space was available at Level IV home confinement or work 
release.  Smith did not file a direct appeal from his conviction and sentence. 
 
(3) 
In May 2006, an official from the Department of Correction 
contacted the sentencing judge to inquire about the terms of Smith’s 
sentence.  The official was confused because it appeared that, given the 
effective date of Smith’s sentence, he would already have finished serving 
his Level IV time on the date he was sentenced.  In response to the inquiry, 
the sentencing judge stated that his intention had been to impose a “time 
served sentence,” meaning that, as of March 28, 2006, Smith would be 
deemed to have completed the Level V portion of his sentence and would be 
ready to begin his Level IV sentence.   
 
(4) 
The record reflects that, in accordance with the judge’s stated 
intent, the Department of Correction placed Smith on Level IV Plummer 
Center.  The record also reflects that, on May 25, 2006, Smith failed to 
return to the facility on time.  He was charged with Escape After Conviction 
and subsequently pleaded guilty to the reduced charge of Escape in the 
Second Degree.  At the time the Superior Court issued its October 20, 2006 
 
3
order, denying post-conviction relief, Smith was awaiting sentencing on his 
escape conviction.         
 
(5) 
In this appeal, Smith claims that the Superior Court’s stated 
intent had the effect of improperly lengthening his sentence and that his 
sentence is, therefore, illegal. 
 
(6)  
When the Superior Court imposes a sentence consisting of 
Level V time with decreasing levels of supervision, as in this case, each 
component of the sentence is integral to the sentencing judge’s overall 
“sentencing plan.”2  This Court has held that the imposition of a sentence is 
within the discretionary authority of the Superior Court and, whenever 
possible, effect should be given to its intent.3  The Superior Court’s 
clarification of its sentence, and the Department of Correction’s actions in 
accordance with that clarification, were, thus, entirely proper.  There is, 
moreover, no support for Smith’s contention that his sentence is illegal.   
                                                 
2 Defoe v. State, 750 A.2d 1200, 1202 (Del. 2000); Guyer v. State, 453 A.2d 462, 464-65 
(Del. 1982); Faircloth v. State, 522 A.2d 1268, 1273 (Del. 1987). 
3 Id.; Weber v. State, 655 A.2d 1219, 1221 (Del. 1995). 
 
4
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED.4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
         Justice  
 
 
 
                                                 
4 Smith has not demonstrated good cause for transcripts and, therefore, his motion for 
transcripts is hereby denied.