Submitted: October 9, 2019
Timothy G. Maguire, Deputy Attorney General
Gregory E. Smith, Deputy Attorney General
Benjamin S. Gifford, IV, Esquire Mr. Darnell Martin, pro se
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR CREDIT TIME
R. WALLACE, JUDGE.
11th day of October, 2019, upon consideration of
the Defendant Darnell D. Martin's pro se Motion
for Credit Time (D.I. 58-59), the State's response
thereto (D.I. 61), and the record in this matter, it appears
to the Court that:
January 9, 2018, following a bench trial, Darnell Martin was
convicted of drug dealing and another related charge. He was
immediately sentenced to serve, inter alia, a
25-year term of imprisonment suspended after two years for 18
months of supervised probation. The two years of unsuspended
imprisonment was a statutory minimum term of incarceration
the imposition of which was required and could not be
suspended. The effective date of Martin's
sentence was January 9, 2018, because he was at liberty until
his conviction and sentencing.
Martin filed a direct appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court.
His convictions and sentence were affirmed. And so, now
Martin is pursuing postconviction relief via a separate
Martin previously filed an unsuccessful motion for sentence
reduction under Superior Court Criminal Rule
35(b). Martin also previously filed an
unsuccessful state petition for a writ of habeas
Martin's present motion, filed from prison, asks the
Court to "grant him an additional 2 days previously
served." Martin alleges he was held in police
custody for two days when he was first arrested and before he
made bail. But Martin provides no evidentiary support
for this contention and there is nothing on the face of the
record that reveals this alleged two-day term of
Martin's is a motion seeking application of the statute
that requires credit for "any period of actual
incarcertation" previously served on a given charge when
determining the termination date of an inmate's sentence
for that charge.
Martin is no longer held at Level V; the incarcerative
portion of his sentence terminated on September 25,
2019. Thus, any application of credit time to
diminish his prison time now is moot.
Martin is now serving a term of probation,
however. So if he is correct in his assertions
(i.e., that he has some unaccounted-for previous
"period of incarceration") and his calculations
(i.e., that is a two-day period), and if he violates
his probation, the maximum Level V term Martin could face
would be diminished by the two additional days he sought
here. That is how, when, and the only way he
might receive credit for time he believes he is due.
But that calculation simply is not yet-and hopefully never
will be- a matter ripe for determination by the Court.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Darnell
D. Martin's motion for ...