Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Priest

Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle

October 6, 2014

STATE OF DELAWARE
v.
KEVIN L. PRIEST Defendant

Submitted: August 1, 2014

On Defendant's Motion to Have Concurrent Sentence of Imprisonment Imposed.

Matthew B. Frawley, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for the State

Kevin L. Priest, Smyrna, Delaware, pro se

ORDER

RICHARD R. COOCH, R.J.

This 6th day of October, 2014, upon consideration of Defendant's Motion to Have Concurrent Sentence of Imprisonment Imposed, it appears to the Court that:

1. Defendant Kevin L. Priest pled guilty to two counts of drug dealing in July 2012. In September 2012, Defendant was sentenced as a habitual offender to a total of 9 years at Level V, suspended after 5 years for eighteen months at Level IV, suspended after six months with the balance to be served on Level III probation.[1]
2. Defendant filed a Motion for Correction of Sentence in November 2013, requesting that this allow him to serve a portion of his sentence on work release after completion of a treatment program.[2] That motion was subsequently denied by this Court.[3]
3. Defendant filed the instant "Motion of a Formal Letter, " on August 1, 2014. In his filing, Defendant requests, pursuant to the amendments to 11 Del. C. 3901, that this Court amend his sentence and allow his two sentences to run concurrently, rather than consecutively.[4]
4. As amended, Section 3901(d) provides in part: "The court shall direct whether the sentence of confinement of any criminal defendant by any court of this State shall be made to run concurrently or consecutively with any other sentence of confinement imposed on such criminal defendant."[5]
5. Delaware case law is well settled on this point, and provides that "a law will not be construed as retroactive unless the Act clearly, by express language or necessary implication, indicates that the legislature intended a retroactive application."[6]
6. This Court finds that Section 3901(d), as amended does not have retroactive effect.[7] As a result, Defendant's September 2012 sentences on the two counts of drug dealing to which he pled guilty cannot be revisited under 3901(d).

Therefore, Defendant's Motion to Have Concurrent Sentence of Imprisonment Imposed is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.