Drummond v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE MARK A. DRUMMOND, Defendant BelowAppellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff BelowAppellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 86, 2002 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for Sussex County Cr.A. No. S96-01-012-01 Submitted: July 26, 2002 Decided: August 28, 2002 Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and STEELE, Justices ORDER This 28th day of August 2002, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal and the record below, it appears to the Court that: (1) The defendant-appellant, Mark A. Drummond, filed this appeal from the Superior Court s corrected sentencing order dated January 25, 2002. We find no merit to the appeal. Accordingly, we AFFIRM. (2) In this appeal, Drummond claims that the Superior Court erred when it corrected his sentence on January 25, 2002 because it did not include in that sentence a 6-month probationary transition period, as mandated by statute.1 (3) In March 1996, Drummond pleaded guilty in Sussex County Superior Court to a charge of Escape After Conviction. He was declared an habitual offender. In July 1996 the Superior Court sentenced Drummond to 15 years incarceration at Level V, to be suspended after 8 years and completion of the New Hope Program for 18 months at Level III, followed by 5 years at Level II. In October 1996, Drummond pleaded guilty to additional criminal charges in New Castle County Superior Court. He was sentenced to a total of 27 years incarceration at Level V, to be followed by 6 months at Level IV work release, then 4 years and 6 months at Level III probation. 1 DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 4204(l) (2001). -2- (4) On January 25, 2002, the Sussex County Superior Court corrected Drummond s March 1996 sentence by reducing it to 8 years incarceration at Level V.2 The hearing transcript reflects that the Sussex County Superior Court did not add a 6-month probationary transition period because Drummond had been sentenced by the New Castle County Superior Court in October 1996 to a lengthy Level V sentence and a lengthy period of probation that was substantially in excess of the mandatory 6-month period. Drummond did not object to the sentence imposed at the January 25, 2002 sentencing hearing. (5) There was no plain error3 in the Superior Court s corrected sentence. The purpose of the 6-month probationary transition period is to assure that no incarcerated individual is returned directly to the community without any transition or follow-up supervision.4 Under the probationary portion of the sentence imposed by the New Castle County Superior Court, Drummond will serve substantially more than 6 months probation after he completes his 2 The Superior Court determined that a correction was necessary because a portion of Drummond s original sentence had been suspended for probation in violation of the habitual offender statute. DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 4214(a) (2001). 3 SUPR. CT. R. 8. 4 Nave v. State, 783 A.2d 120, 122 (Del. 2001). -3- consecutive terms of Level V incarceration,5 thereby fulfilling the statutory requirements. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT: /s/ E. Norman Veasey Chief Justice 5 Faircloth v. State, 522 A.2d 1268, 1272 (Del. 1987). -4-
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.
