Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

State v. Martin

Superior Court of Delaware

October 11, 2019

STATE OF DELAWARE,
v.
DARNELL D. MARTIN, Defendant.

          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

          PAUL R. WALLACE, JUDGE.

         This 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:

         (1) On 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.[1] The effective date of Martin's sentence was January 9, 2018, because he was at liberty until his conviction and sentencing.[2]

         (2) Martin filed a direct appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court. His convictions and sentence were affirmed.[3] And so, now Martin is pursuing postconviction relief via a separate application.[4]

         (3) Martin previously filed an unsuccessful motion for sentence reduction under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b).[5] Martin also previously filed an unsuccessful state petition for a writ of habeas corpus.[6]

         (4) Martin's present motion, filed from prison, asks the Court to "grant[] him an additional 2 days previously served."[7] Martin alleges he was held in police custody for two days when he was first arrested and before he made bail.[8] 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 "incarceration."

         (5) 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.[9]

         (6) But Martin is no longer held at Level V; the incarcerative portion of his sentence terminated on September 25, 2019.[10] Thus, any application of credit time to diminish his prison time now is moot.[11]

         (7) Martin is now serving a term of probation, however.[12] 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.[13] 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.

         (8) NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Darnell D. Martin's motion for ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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