Hackett v. State

No. 707, 2014 · Supreme Court of the State of Delaware · July 21, 2015 · No. No. 707, 2014

Summary

The Delaware Supreme Court held that Victor Hackett's sentence was illegal because its suspended portion violated the habitual-offender sentencing requirements of 11 Del. C. § 4214(a). The Court also held that the Superior Court improperly treated Hackett's Rule 35(a) motion as an untimely and repetitive Rule 35(b) motion. It vacated the sentence and remanded for a new sentencing proceeding requiring a lawful transition period.

Court
Supreme Court of the State of Delaware
Writing for the Court
Karen L. Valihura; Holland; Valihura; Vaughn
Jurisdiction
Delaware
Decision date
July 21, 2015
Docket number
No. 707, 2014
Procedural posture
Appeal from the Superior Court's denial of a motion to correct an illegal sentence under Delaware Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a).
Standard of review
Abuse of discretion
Precedential value
Published Delaware Supreme Court order; precedential status is not expressly stated in the opinion text.
Parties
Victor Hackett v. State of Delaware
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded

Topics

sentencingsentence modificationcriminal procedureappellate procedurestatutory interpretation

Practice areas

criminal lawcriminal proceduresentencingappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Superior Court erred by treating Hackett's motion to correct an illegal sentence under Rule 35(a) as a repetitive and untimely motion for reduction of sentence under Rule 35(b).
  2. Whether the suspended portion of Hackett's habitual-offender sentence violated 11 Del. C. § 4214(a).
  3. Whether the corrected sentence was required to include a transition period under 11 Del. C. § 4204(l), and what remedy was appropriate.

Holdings

  1. The Superior Court abused its discretion by construing Hackett's Rule 35(a) motion as a Rule 35(b) motion and denying it as untimely and repetitive. An illegal sentence may be corrected at any time.
  2. The suspended portion of Hackett's sentence violated Section 4214(a) and had to be corrected.
  3. A corrected sentence imposing fifteen years at Level V under Section 4214(a) had to include a transition period under 11 Del. C. § 4204(l).
  4. The sentence was vacated and the matter remanded for a new sentencing proceeding, with notice to and attendance by Hackett and his defense counsel.

Key quotations

When the Superior Court imposes a sentence consisting of Level V time with decreasing levels of supervision, each component of the sentence is integral to the overall sentencing plan. (4)
An illegal sentence can be corrected “at any time.” (3)

Factual background

Hackett pleaded guilty in December 2006 to one count of possession with intent to deliver cocaine and agreed to be sentenced as a habitual offender under 11 Del. C. § 4214(a). The Superior Court sentenced him to fifteen years at Level V, while also imposing suspended Level V time followed by Level IV halfway-house treatment and Level III probation. Hackett later moved to correct the sentence, arguing that the suspended portion violated Section 4214(a).

Procedural history

Hackett pleaded guilty to possession with intent to deliver cocaine and was sentenced as a habitual offender under 11 Del. C. § 4214(a). The Superior Court imposed fifteen years at Level V, together with suspended Level V time followed by Level IV and Level III supervision. In November 2014, Hackett moved to correct the sentence under Rule 35(a), but the Superior Court construed the motion as an untimely and repetitive Rule 35(b) motion and denied it. The Delaware Supreme Court reversed, vacated the sentence, and remanded for a new sentencing proceeding.

Remand instructions

The Superior Court must conduct a new sentencing proceeding consistent with the opinion. Hackett and his defense counsel must receive notice of and attend the proceeding. The February 16, 2007 sentence, as modified on May 7, 2010, is vacated; jurisdiction is not retained.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…