Title: Gatewood v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 562, 2015
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: February 29, 2016

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
STANLEY GATEWOOD, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 562, 2015 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID 1407022963 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: December 31, 2015 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
February 29, 2016 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND, and SEITZ, Justices 
 
ORDER 
 
 
This 29th day of February 2016, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief, the State’s motion to affirm, and the record below, it appears 
to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The appellant, Stanley Gatewood, filed this appeal from the 
Superior Court’s denial of his motion for credit for time served.  The State 
has filed a motion to affirm the judgment below on the ground that it is 
manifest on the face of Gatewood’s opening brief that his appeal is without 
merit.  We agree and affirm. 
 
(2) 
The record reflects that Gatewood pled guilty on May 11, 2015 
to Possession of a Firearm by a Person Prohibited (“PFPP”), Receiving a 
 
2 
Stolen Firearm, and Conspiracy in the Second Degree.  After a presentence 
investigation, the Superior Court sentenced Gatewood, effective October 13, 
2014, to serve a total period of twenty years at Level V incarceration, to be 
suspended after serving ten years in prison for decreasing levels of 
supervision.   On September 21, 2015, Gatewood filed a motion seeking 
credit for time served, requesting that the effective date of his sentence be 
changed from October 13, 2014 to July 22, 2014.  The Superior Court 
denied Gatewood’s motion on the ground that the time he spent incarcerated 
from July 22 to October 13 was credited to a VOP sentence entered by a 
different judge in a different criminal action number (Cr. ID No. 
1102019377).  Gatewood appeals that ruling. 
 
(3) 
Having carefully considered the parties’ respective positions, 
we find no merit to Gatewood’s appeal.  The Superior Court gave credit for 
the time that Gatewood spent in prison from July 22, 2014 to October 13, 
2014 toward the VOP sentence imposed in Cr. ID No. 1102019377.  Under 
11 Del. C. § 3901(d),1 the Superior Court, as a matter of law, could not order 
Gatewood’s 2014 sentence for PFPP to run concurrently with any other 
                                                 
1 11 Del. C. §3901(d) provides in relevant part that “no sentence of confinement … shall 
be made to run concurrently with any other sentence of confinement imposed on such 
criminal defendant for … any sentence for possession of a firearm by a person prohibited 
where the criminal defendant was previously convicted of a Title 11 violent felony [as 
defined in § 4201(c)].” 
 
3 
sentence because Gatewood previously had been convicted of a prior violent 
felony under 11 Del. C. § 4201(c).2  Gatewood is not entitled to double 
credit for the time he spent in custody serving his VOP sentence in Cr. ID 
No. 1102019377. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                                 
2 In fact, Gatewood had two prior violent felony convictions.  He had been convicted of 
PFPP in Cr. ID No. 1102019377, and he had been convicted of Distribution of a 
Controlled Substance Within 300 Feet of a Church in Cr. ID No. 0902001354.  Both of 
these offenses are identified as violent felonies under 11 Del. C. § 4201(c).