Court Opinion

ID: 9960901
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-17 16:02:22.093919+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:02.119796
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

 CLARENCE E. HEATH,                      §
                                         § No. 33, 2024
       Defendant Below,                  §
       Appellant,                        § Court Below—Superior Court
                                         § of the State of Delaware
       v.                                §
                                         § Cr. ID No. 2308005997(K)
 STATE OF DELAWARE,                      §
                                         §
       Appellee.                         §

                           Submitted: February 15, 2024
                           Decided:   April 16, 2024

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and GRIFFITHS, Justices.

                                        ORDER

      Upon consideration of the opening brief, motion to affirm, and record on

appeal, it appears to the Court that:

      (1)    The appellant, Clarence E. Heath, filed this appeal from a Superior

Court order sentencing him for a violation of probation (“VOP”). The State of

Delaware has filed a motion to affirm the judgment below on the ground that it is

manifest on the face of Heath’s opening brief that his appeal is without merit. We

agree and affirm.

      (2)    On August 31 2023, Heath pleaded guilty to third-offense driving under

the influence (“DUI”). The Superior Court immediately sentenced Heath to the

sentence recommended by the parties: two years of Level V incarceration, effective
August 13, 2023, suspended for one year of Level V incarceration to be suspended

after ninety days for one year of Level II probation. The sentencing order also

required Heath to maintain at least ninety consecutive days of sobriety with an

alcohol monitoring device and to complete an intensive inpatient or outpatient

alcohol treatment program of not less than three months. Heath did not appeal.

      (3)   On November 3, 2023 Heath was released from Level V incarceration.

Before his release, Heath signed his conditions of probation and was instructed that

he could not leave Delaware without permission. On December 21, 2023 the

Department of Correction (“DOC”) filed an administrative warrant for Heath’s

VOP. The VOP report alleged that Heath’s alcohol monitoring device, which

included GPS, showed that he was in Maryland without permission on November

27, 2023 and multiple times in December 2023. The report also alleged that Heath

had failed to report for the intake to the ninety-day intensive outpatient drug and

alcohol treatment program that he was required to complete after his release from

Level V incarceration.

      (4)   After a hearing on January 8, 2024, the Superior Court found that Heath

had violated his probation.     The Superior Court sentenced Heath, effective

December 20, 2023, to one year and nine months of Level V incarceration,

suspended after nine months Level V Reflections program for one year of Level III

probation. This appeal followed.

                                         2
         (5)     In his opening brief, Heath argues that his VOP sentence was illegal.

He is mistaken. A sentence is illegal when it exceeds the statutorily authorized

limits, violates double jeopardy, is ambiguous with respect to the time and manner

in which it is to be served, is internally contradictory, omits a term required to be

imposed by statute, is uncertain as to substance, or is a sentence that the judgment

of conviction did not authorize.1

         (6)     Once Heath committed a VOP, the Superior Court could impose any

period of incarceration up to and including the balance of Level V time remaining

on his sentence.2 Heath’s VOP sentence—one year and nine months of Level V

incarceration suspended after nine months Level V Reflections program—does not

exceed the Level V time remaining on his sentence for third-offense DUI and is not

illegal. It is manifest on the face of Heath’s opening brief that his appeal is without

merit.

         NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is

GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.

                                                      BY THE COURT:

                                                      /s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr.
                                                           Chief Justice

1
    Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del.1998).
2
    11 Del. C. § 4334(c); Pavulak v. State, 880 A.2d 1044, 1046 (Del. 2005).
                                                 3