State of Delaware v. Snead.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE T. HENLEY GRAVES SUSSEX COUNTY C OURTHO USE RESIDENT JUDGE ONE THE CIRCLE, SUITE 2 GEORGETOWN, DE 19947 March 7, 2008 John T. Snead Sussex Correctional Institution 23203 D uPont Boulevard P. O. Box 500 Georgetown, DE 19947 RE: Defendant ID No. 0105002628 Criminal Action No. IS 01-05-0351(R1) Possession with the intent to deliver cocaine Dear Mr. Snead: You have filed a Motio n for Postco nviction R elief. It is denied, but the Court is correcting its sentence of November 8, 2006 to include an additional 30 days of credit time that you allege you did not receive. This 30 days was the time you spent at the Boot Camp Tune-up in lieu of a violation of probation which would have resulted in a five-year mandatory sentence. Unfortunately, as discussed below, you later violated probation triggering the five-year mandato ry sentence. HISTORY On September 7, 2001, you entered guilty pleas to several offenses pursuant to negotiations with the Prosecutor's office. On IS01-05-0349 , you en tered a gu ilty plea to trafficking in cocaine. You received a three-year mandatory sentence for the traffic offense. On IS01-05-0352, you entered a guilty plea to possession of a firearm by person prohibited an d received a four-year susp ended sen tence. As to IS01 -05-035 8, the resisting arrest, you received a o ne-year suspe nded senten ce. Pursuant to the negotiations, you also pled guilty to IS01-05-0351 which was a possession with the intent to deliver cocaine. Based upon your prior record, you faced a minimum mandatory of five years incarceration on this sentence, up to ten years. The State and the John T. Snead March 7, 2008 defense recommended that you be deferred as to this sentence and placed in the Boot Camp Diversion program. On September 7, 2001, a full colloquy took place between you and Judge Richard F. Stokes. You were aware of the consequences of a violation of the Boot Camp Diversion program. Judge Stokes informed you that you could receive up to ten years incarceration and that a Judge wo uld be requ ired to put you in jail for five years if you were then violated. You were also made aware that you would not receive credit time for the time that you were actually in the Bo ot Camp program (i.e., the six months). You w ere also informed by Judge Stokes that if you failed to su ccessfully comp lete the program that there is a huge downside and the judges hav e no choice . You served the three years mandatory on the trafficking an d you com pleted the six months incarceration portion of the Boot Camp Diversion sentence. Subsequently, a violation of probation was filed and to resolve same, you and the State agreed upon a tune-up at the Boot Camp for a period of thirty (30) days, which would resolve the violation without triggering re-sentencing to the mand atory sentence. Unfortunately, another violation arose an d the Sta te was not willing to allow the matter to be resolved with a tune-up, thereby triggering a violation of probation and requiring the Court to sentence you on IS01-0 5-0351 b y vacating the d iversion orde r. I sentenced you to a period of eight years with credit for 20 days, suspended after serving a five-year mandatory sentence for a period o f 18 mon ths Level 3. Subsequently, your atto rney filed a Motio n to declare the eight-year sentence received as an illegal sentence pursuant to Superior Court Rule 35. By correspondence dated March 26, 2007 to Andre M. Beauregard, Esquire, your then attorney, I denied the Motion. The sentence that was imposed on November 8, 2006 was w ithin the sta tutory gu idelines fo r a posses sion with the intent to deliver cocaine and the five-year mandatory was required. In other words, as Judge Stokes informed you in 2001, the Court had no choice but to impo se the five-year mandatory sentence. The colloquy between this Judge and Mr. Beauregard on November 8, 2006 indicates that Mr. Beauregard argued that the C ourt did not have to find you in violation of probation because the Court could basically ignore your admission that you were in viola tion of proba tion. I informed Mr. Beauregard that it would be a vio lation of th e Cou rt's oath to u phold th e law to ignore this violation of probation. Again, the five years you received on November 8, 2006 w as a mandatory sentence which had to be imposed. John T. Snead March 7, 2008 RULE 61 ALLEGATIONS As I interpret your complaints, you allege the following a s grounds for Rule 61 relief: (a) You allege that in addition to the thirty days credit due you for the Boot Camp tune-up , you should receive credit for the six months incarcerative portion of the Boot Camp sentencing order; (b) You allege that Judge Stokes modified the Aftercare portion of the Boot Camp sentence from 2½ years to 1½ years of probation, and that, therefore, when you were violated, the Court had no jurisdiction because the 1½ years had expired; (c) Alternatively, you allege that modifications of the Boot Camp statute following SB50 which reduced the period of probation following completion of the Boot Camp incarceration from a period of not less than 2½ years to a period of 1½ years (see 11 Del. C. §6712(d)(1)) should have automatically reduced your probationar y period from 2½ year s to eighteen m onths. PROCEDURAL BARS I find that the present petition is procedurally barred based upon Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(i)(1). Deferred sentence was entered on September 7, 2001. That was vacated on November 8, 2006, and therefore you were serving the sentence imposed on November 8, 2006. Sentences occurring after July 1, 2005 have a one-year period in which you may file for relief under R ule 61. It is also procedurally barred in that you have n ot asserted any grounds under R ule 61(i)(3) as to why issues which you argue were presented to the Court on November 8, 2006 were n ot appe aled to th e Delaw are Sup reme C ourt. The bars to relief as con tained in Rule 61(i)(5) are n ot applicable because there was not a miscarriage of justice due to a constitutional violation, nor as discussed below is there any validity to the claim the Court lack ed jurisdiction. ALTERNATIVE DISCUSSION The sentence you entered in 2001 ex posed you to the statutory m aximum that was in effect in 2001. The law in place at the time required a Boot Camp Diversion sentence to have 2½ years of superv ision or prob ation. There is n othing in the C ourt's file which indicates there was ever a modification by Judge Stokes reducing the period of 2½ years to 1½ years. You a re mistaken as to this claim. John T. Snead March 7, 2008 The statutory changes reduced the Boot Camp Diversion supervision from 2 ½ yea rs to 1½ years but the amendment does not automatically and retroactively modify all previous sentences imposed u nder the old statu te. Richardson v. State, Del. Supr., No. 405, Steele, C.J. (Dec. 16, 2005). In other words, the sentence imposed pursuant to the statute permitting 2½ years of probation or supervision following the incarcerative portion of the Boot Camp remained in effect unless modified by a subsequent Court Order. Again, that was not done. The 2½ years of post Boot Camp probation was valid. On June 21, 2006, you were arrested for the violation which triggered the present sentence. It appears you were arrested 1 year 7 months and 8 day s after leaving Bo ot Camp . Finally, you cite to 11 Del. C.§6710 as a legal basis that you should receive credit for the six months tha t you were in carcerated in the Boot Camp program. 11 Del. C.§6710 is not the statute under which you we re sentenced. You we re sentenced pursuant to 11 Del.C. §6712, the Boot Camp Diversion program. Specifically, 11 Del.C. §6712(h), you are not to receive any credit time for time spent at the Boot Camp. That is the law, and you were aware of it pursuant to the colloqu y with Judge Stokes wh en you origin ally entered the p lea. In summary, your Motion for Rule 61 relief is denied. The sentence imposed on November 8, 2006 under w hich you must serve five years was the lowest sentence the Cou rt could impose. Again, you w ere aware of that based u pon the co lloquy with Ju dge Stokes in 2001. Finally, I note that the sentencing order of November 8, 2006 is corrected to include an additional thirty (30) days prev iously served in order to pick up the Boot Camp tune-up time. IT IS SO ORDERED. Yours very truly, T. Henley Graves THG:baj cc: Prothonotary Department of Justice
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
