Waters v. State
285, 2016
| Del. | Oct 24, 2016Background
- In June 2015 Waters pled guilty to Possession of Cocaine and Conspiracy in the Third Degree and received suspended Level V sentences (totaling almost 18 months of Level V time suspended). No direct appeal of that judgment was taken.
- A capias issued February 2, 2016 alleged Waters violated probation by committing new crimes and failing to report to his probation officer.
- At the May 12, 2016 VOP hearing Waters’ counsel admitted the arrests and failure to report. The Superior Court found a VOP and discharged Waters as unimproved on the Possession charge.
- The Superior Court imposed six months Level V on the Conspiracy conviction (reducing previously suspended Level V time and noting consideration of time already served); Waters received no additional appeal relief.
- Waters appealed raising claims that (1) a plea agreement entitled him to 30 days Level V, (2) he wasn’t credited for time served between April 25 and May 12, 2016, (3) the sentencing judge was biased and improperly refused to make sentences concurrent, and (4) counsel was ineffective.
- The State moved to affirm on the face of Waters’ opening brief; the Court found the appeal meritless and affirmed the Superior Court.
Issues
| Issue | Waters' Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Waters’ VOP sentence exceeded statutory limits | Waters contended his plea/agreement entitled him to 30 days Level V | The sentence was within statutory limits for a VOP and no plea agreement governed the VOP | Held: Sentence (six months Level V) was within statutory limits and lawful |
| Whether Waters was entitled to credit for time served (Apr 25–May 12, 2016) | Waters claimed he did not receive credit for that interval | Court noted the VOP order reduced Level V time and explicitly considered prior time served | Held: Reduction in Level V time accounted for prior time served; claim rejected |
| Whether the sentencing judge was biased or improperly rejected probation officer’s recommendation | Waters alleged judicial bias and faulted the court for not following the VOP recommendation | State argued judge has discretion; no record evidence of bias and court not bound by probation recommendation | Held: No evidence of bias; court acted within discretion |
| Whether counsel was ineffective and whether sentences should be concurrent | Waters raised ineffective-assistance claims and argued sentences should run concurrently | State argued concurrence is discretionary and ineffective assistance not to be raised first on direct appeal | Held: Concurrency is discretionary; ineffective-assistance claims declined on direct appeal (not considered) |
Key Cases Cited
- Mayes v. State, 604 A.2d 839 (Del. 1992) (review of sentence ends if within statutory limits)
- Pavulak v. State, 880 A.2d 1044 (Del. 2005) (Superior Court may impose up to the balance of suspended Level V time for a VOP)
- Weston v. State, 832 A.2d 742 (Del. 2003) (abuse of discretion standard where sentence rests on false or unreliable factual predicates or bias)
- Fountain v. State, 139 A.3d 837 (Del. 2016) (concurrent vs. consecutive sentencing is a judge’s discretion)
- Desmond v. State, 654 A.2d 821 (Del. 1994) (ineffective-assistance claims generally inappropriate first raised on direct appeal)