Title: Peterson v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 64, 2004
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: August 17, 2004

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
COREY J. PETERSON, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 64, 2004 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr.A. Nos. IN99-11-1308, -1312, 
§  -1313, and N01-06-0907 
§  Cr. ID 9911001165 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: May 21, 2004 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
August 17, 2004 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, BERGER, and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 17th day of August 2004, upon consideration of the parties’ briefs 
and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Corey Peterson, filed this appeal from 
the Superior Court’s order denying his motion for correction of sentence.  
Peterson asserts that his sentence is illegal because he was denied due 
process when the Superior Court modified his sentence following a violation 
of probation (VOP) proceeding.  The State concedes that the record in this 
case raises questions about the sufficiency of the process afforded Peterson 
below.  The State requests that the matter be remanded to the Superior Court 
for further proceedings and consideration of the issues.  We agree.   
 
2
(2) 
The record reflects that Peterson pled guilty in June 2001 to 
maintaining a vehicle for keeping controlled substances, second degree 
forgery, and two counts of possession of heroin.  The Superior Court 
sentenced Peterson immediately to a total period of six years at Level V 
incarceration to be suspended after two and a half years, with credit for five 
months already served, for decreasing levels of supervision.  No appeal was 
taken. 
 
(3) 
In May 2002, the Superior Court modified Peterson’s sentence 
following a hearing to permit him to transfer to a Level IV drug treatment 
program.  In June 2002, Peterson’s sentence was further modified to provide 
that he be held at Level III probation pending space availability in the 
treatment program.  In October 2002, Peterson’s sentence was again 
modified to suspend all of his current sentences for Level III probation.  In 
March 2003, following a TASC (Treatment Access Services Center) status 
conference, Peterson’s sentence was modified to include a zero tolerance 
provision.  The following month, Peterson failed to appear for another 
TASC status conference and a bench warrant was issued for his arrest. 
 
(4) 
On August 25, following the return of the bench warrant, a 
Superior Court Commissioner held a hearing and recommended that 
Peterson’s sentence again be modified.  Based on the Commissioner’s 
 
3
recommendation, a judge of the Superior Court signed an order that revoked 
Peterson’s probation with respect to his maintaining a vehicle conviction and 
reimposed the original two year sentence to be suspended upon Peterson’s 
successful completion of a Level V drug treatment program.  The sentences 
for Peterson’s other convictions were reimposed. 
 
(5) 
Peterson filed a motion requesting credit for time previously 
served.  In December 2003, the Superior Court, without holding a hearing, 
modified Peterson’s sentence to give him credit for 18 months and 21 days 
previously served.  The Superior Court’s modified sentencing order also 
reimposed Peterson’s sentence on the forgery conviction and suspended the 
sentence for two years at Level IV to be suspended upon successful 
completion for Level III probation.  Peterson was ordered to be held at Level 
V incarceration pending space availability at Level IV.  The Superior Court 
discharged Peterson from his remaining sentences as unimproved.  Peterson 
filed a motion for modification of sentence, which the Superior Court 
denied.  This appeal followed. 
 
(6) 
In his opening brief on appeal, Peterson argues: (a) he was 
improperly sentenced by the Superior Court Commissioner, rather than a 
Superior Court judge; (b) he did not receive notice of his alleged probation 
violation; (c) if he had known he was facing a probation violation charge, he 
 
4
would have requested counsel; (d) the Superior Court improperly sentenced 
him in absentia when it modified his sentence in December 2003; and (e) he 
was sentenced twice for the same probation violation. 
(7) 
In its answering brief, the State asserts that Peterson’s VOP 
sentence does not implicate double jeopardy concerns and is otherwise a 
legal sentence.1  Nonetheless, the State concedes that the record raises 
questions about whether Peterson’s VOP sentence was imposed in a legal 
manner.2  Specifically, the State indicates that there is nothing in the 
Superior Court record to reflect that Peterson was afforded a VOP hearing 
before a Superior Court judge as required by Superior Court Criminal Rule 
32.1.  Furthermore, the State concedes that the record does not reflect that 
Peterson ever received notice of the alleged VOP.3  Finally, the State 
concedes that Peterson should have been entitled to a hearing on his motion 
for modification of sentence to the extent that the Superior Court’s modified 
sentencing order reflected a substantive legal change to Peterson’s sentence.4  
The State therefore requests that the matter be remanded to the Superior 
                                                 
1 See Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(a) (“The court may correct an illegal sentence at any 
time and may correct a sentence imposed in an illegal manner within the time provided 
herein for the reduction of sentence.”). 
2 See Super. Ct. Crim. R. 32.1(a) (providing that a person held on a VOP charge 
“shall be afforded a prompt hearing before a judge of Superior Court on the charge of 
violation.”); Perry v. State, 741 A.2d 359 (Del. 1999). 
3 Id.  
4 Jones v. State, 672 A.2d 554, 556 (Del. 1996). 
 
5
Court for reconsideration of Peterson’s motion for modification of sentence 
after the State has been given the opportunity to respond to Peterson’s 
motion. 
(8) 
After careful consideration of the parties’ briefs, we agree that 
the Superior Court’s judgment on Peterson’s motion for modification of 
sentence must be vacated, and this matter must be remanded for further 
proceedings.  On remand, the Superior Court is directed to hold a hearing on 
Peterson’s motion and give both parties notice and an opportunity to be 
heard on the motion.  
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is VACATED, and this matter is REMANDED for further 
proceedings consistent with this order.  Jurisdiction is not retained. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice