Cohee v. State ( 2016 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
DANIEL COHEE, §
§
Defendant Below- § No. 256, 2016
Appellant, §
§
v. § Court Below—Superior Court
§ of the State of Delaware
STATE OF DELAWARE, §
§ Cr. ID 1004008353
Plaintiff Below- §
Appellee. §
Submitted: September 27, 2016
Decided: November 14, 2016
Before VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and SEITZ Justices.
ORDER
This 14th day of November 2016, upon consideration of the
appellant’s opening brief, the State’s motion to affirm, and the record on
appeal, it appears to the Court that:
(1) The appellant, Daniel Cohee, filed this appeal from the Superior
Court’s order, dated April 29, 2016, denying Cohee’s motion for correction
of an illegal sentence. The State of Delaware has filed a motion to affirm
the judgment below on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Cohee’s
opening brief that the appeal is without merit. We agree and affirm.
(2) Cohee pled guilty in September 2010 to one count each of
Carjacking in the First Degree, Disregarding a Police Officer’s Signal, and
Possession of a Deadly Weapon by a Person Prohibited. The Superior Court
sentenced Cohee on all three charges to a total period of nine years at Level
V incarceration, to be suspended after serving three years in prison for two
years at decreasing levels of supervision. Cohee did not appeal. In February
2013, Cohee was found in violation of his probation and sentenced to four
years and three months at Level V incarceration, to be suspended upon
Cohee’s successful completion of drug treatment for decreasing levels of
supervision. Cohee did not appeal that judgment. In April 2016, Cohee
filed a motion for correction of sentence, claiming that his VOP sentence
was illegal. The Superior Court denied his motion. This appeal followed.
(3) Cohee argues in his opening brief that his VOP sentence is
illegal because it violated the SENTAC guidelines. Cohee also argues that
his due process rights were violated at his 2013 VOP hearing because he was
denied the opportunity to be heard and to present evidence in his own
defense.
(4) We find no merit to Cohee’s appeal. A motion for correction of
sentence is very narrow in scope.1 It is not a means to challenge the legality
of a conviction or to raise allegations of error occurring in the proceedings
1
Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998).
2
before the imposition of sentence.2 Thus, we reject Cohee’s attempt to
collaterally attack the validity of his VOP adjudication.
(5) Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a) permits relief when “the
sentence imposed exceeds the statutorily-authorized limits, [or] violates the
Double Jeopardy Clause.”3 A sentence also is illegal if it “is ambiguous
with respect to the time and manner in which it is to be served, is internally
contradictory, omits a term required to be imposed by statute, is uncertain as
to the substance of the sentence, or is a sentence which the judgment of
conviction did not authorize.”4
(6) In sentencing a defendant for a VOP, the trial court is
authorized to impose any period of incarceration up to and including the
balance of the Level V time remaining to be served on the original
sentence.5 In this case, the Superior Court reimposed the Level V time
remaining from Cohee’s original Carjacking sentence, but ordered it to be
suspended upon Cohee’s successful completion of a treatment program for
decreasing levels of supervision. Under the circumstances, the sentence was
authorized by law, was neither arbitrary nor excessive, and does not reflect
2
Id.3
Id. (quoting United States v. Pavlico, 961 F.2d 440, 443 (4th Cir. 1992)).
4
Id. (quoting United States v. Dougherty, 106 F.3d 1514, 1515 (10th Cir. 1997)).
5
11 Del C. § 4334(c) (2015).
3
any evidence of a closed mind by the sentencing judge. We find no merit to
Cohee’s appeal.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the
Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ James T. Vaughn, Jr.
Justice
4