Lougheed v. State
189, 2016
| Del. | Oct 10, 2016Background
- Angela Lougheed pled guilty (Mar. 2015) to Theft from a Senior (one count) and two counts of Shoplifting; received concurrent suspended Level V sentences with Level III probation.
- After an initial VOP three months later, court ordered Level IV residential drug treatment; sentence later suspended pending successful completion.
- In March 2016 Lougheed admitted at a VOP hearing that she violated probation by using drugs; counsel requested time served and TASC supervision, noting she had housing and employment.
- The court found a VOP based on her admission and resentenced her: 18 months Level V on the theft count (suspended and discharged upon completion of the Level V Key Village program) and one-year Level V terms on shoplifting (suspended for Level III outpatient treatment).
- Lougheed argued on appeal that the probation officer at the hearing was not her supervising officer and gave incorrect information (number of “slip-ups” and residence verification) and that the court sentenced her with a closed mind.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of VOP finding | Lougheed claimed inaccuracies in probation officer’s statements undermined the VOP finding | State: VOP proven by Lougheed’s admission | Admission alone provides sufficient evidence to sustain VOP finding |
| Reliance on false information | Lougheed argued officer misstated number of drug uses and residence verification | State: no showing that alleged inaccuracies affected outcome | No record support that court relied on false testimony; claim rejected |
| Sentencing bias/closed mind | Lougheed contended court had a closed mind at sentencing | State: sentence was within statutory limits and discretionary | Sentence was within statutory limits; no evidence of closed mind |
| Sentencing lawfulness (scope) | Lougheed implied sentence excessive | State: trial court may impose up to remaining Level V balance for VOP | Sentence authorized; court imposed Key Village completion and suspended remainder—within limits |
Key Cases Cited
- Kurzmann v. State, 903 A.2d 702 (Del. 2006) (probation revocation standards and court discretion)
- Collins v. State, 897 A.2d 159 (Del. 2006) (preponderance standard and definition of some competent evidence for VOP)
- Mayes v. State, 604 A.2d 839 (Del. 1992) (appellate review of sentences ends if within statutory limits)
- Weston v. State, 832 A.2d 742 (Del. 2003) (reviews claim of reliance on false information at sentencing)