Opinion ID: 2382139
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Perry's Rights Denied

Text: The State argues that Perry was adequately informed of the no-contact provisions at sentencing, on July 18, 1997, and also in the sentencing order that was docketed on September 11, 1997. It is undisputed, however, that Perry did not receive a copy of the sentencing order. Furthermore, the judge who presided at the VOP hearing was not the same judge who sentenced Perry on July 18, 1997. The VOP judge had no first-hand knowledge of the original sentence and did not have a transcript of the July 18, 1997 sentencing. Indeed, there is no indication that the July 1997 sentencing transcript exists. It was fundamentally unfair to conclude that Perry violated the terms of his July 18, 1997 sentence without having a transcript of that proceeding, since it is undisputed that neither Perry nor his attorney received a copy of the subsequent written sentencing order. Without the July 1997 sentencing transcript, this Court is unable to ascertain whether or not the no-contact provisions were indeed made crystal clear to Perry, as indicated by the Superior Court at the VOP hearing. As a result of the letters sent by Perry from the Gander Hill Prison the State initiated two parallel proceedings. First, Perry was indicted and charged with criminal contempt of the Delaware and New Jersey sentencing orders. Second, Perry was charged with a violation of his deferred probation. The sequence of the two proceedings provided the State with procedural advantages. If the criminal charges were tried first, Perry would have been entitled to the full panoply of rights that are guaranteed to any defendant. Those convictions, if any, could have then constituted the basis for revoking Perry's unexecuted probation. The State, however, proceeded with the VOP hearing first. The State used the unproven criminal charges in the April 1998 indictment as the basis for the alleged violation. This gave the State an advantage because Perry was not entitled to the usual trial rights at a probation violation proceeding. The State entered a nolle prosequi regarding the unproven criminal charges in the April 1998 indictment immediately after Perry was found to have violated his deferred probation. The record reflects that Perry was not afforded the minimum requirements of due process. [11] The record also reflects that the Superior Court VOP hearing did not comport with the requirements of Superior Court Criminal Rule 32.1. Furthermore, this is one of the exceptional VOP proceedings in which a defendant is entitled to be represented by counsel. [12]