 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[T] Vincent v. State10/28/1999
Submitted: September 20, 1999
ORDER
This 28th day of October 1999, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal and the record below, it appears to the Court that:
(1) The defendant-appellant, Raymond Leroy Vincent, Jr. (AVincent@), filed this appeal from the Superior Court=s modification of its sentencing order following a Treatment Access Center (ATASC@) status hearing. We find no merit to the appeal. Accordingly, we affirm.
(2) In this appeal, Vincent claims: first, he did not have sufficient time to retain counsel to represent him at the hearing; second, he was not informed of his alleged violation of probation prior to the hearing so he could prepare a defense; third, he did not have an opportunity to cross examine his TASC counselor at the hearing; and fourth, the Superior Court abused its discretion in increasing his probation supervision from Level II to Level III.
(3) In 1996 Vincent was convicted by a jury of Driving a Vehicle Under the Influence of Alcohol. He was sentenced to 2 years in prison at Level V, to be suspended after 6 months for 6 months at Level III, to be followed by 1 year of supervision at Level II. Vincent did not file a direct appeal from the judgment of conviction.
(4) At the time of the TASC hearing Vincent was serving his Level II probation. At the hearing Vincent admitted missing several sessions with his TASC counselor. The Superior Court ordered that monitoring of Vincent=s probation by TASC be removed, in accordance with requests by both TASC and Vincent. The Superior Court also ordered that Vincent=s supervision be increased to Level III because TASC would no longer be supervising him.
(5) Vincent=s claims are without merit. The notice of hearing received by Vincent indicated he could retain counsel for the hearing. Vincent admits he received the notice of hearing several days before the hearing took place. Therefore, he could have made arrangements for legal representation if he had chosen to do so. Moreover, at the end of the hearing Vincent was informed by the Superior Court that he could retain counsel to apply for a review of the order. Instead of doing so, Vincent appealed to this Court. The record also indicates Vincent knew of the substantive allegations against him prior to the hearing and presented a defense to those allegations, both orally and in a document entitled ACase Review Status Conference,@ at the hearing. The record further reflects that a TASC counselor was present at the hearing. However, Vincent never requested an opportunity to question the TASC counselor or anyone else at the hearing. Therefore, this Court will not review that issue on appeal. Finally, the Superior Court was within its discretion to increase Vincent=s supervision from Level II to Level III, given that Vincent had been convicted a total of 5 times for driving under the influence and that Vincent himself requested TASC be removed from monitoring him.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court be, and the same hereby is, AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT: Randy J. Holland Justice
Page 1 Delaware DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|