 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Vincent v. State11/17/2004
ation" of probation, (b) coerced guilty pleas, and (c) a DUI charge that, at the time of the VOP sentencing, was not yet resolved. Vincent also alleges that the VOP sentence was imposed without regard to sentencing standards and without regard to a written contract that he had with the Crest Program. Vincent's sentencing claims are all without merit.
(9) In this appeal, Vincent may challenge the VOP proceedings and sentence. He may not, however, use the appeal to collaterally attack the voluntariness of his prior guilty pleas.
(10) There is nothing in the record to support Vincent's claim that he was in the Crest Program at the time he was charged with VOP. It appears from the VOP report that Vincent was at Level III Aftercare when he violated probation.
(11) Appellate review of a criminal sentence in Delaware is limited to a determination of whether the sentence is within the statutory limits. When imposing a sentence upon a conviction of VOP, the Superior Court "may continue or revoke the probation or suspension of sentence, and may require the probation violator to serve the sentence imposed, or any lesser, sentence, and if imposition of sentence was suspended, may impose any sentence which might originally have been imposed." Sentencing guidelines for VOP sentences are voluntary and are not binding on the sentencing judge.
(12) Under the circumstances of this case, the Court concludes that the Superior Court did not abuse its discretion when sentencing Vincent. Vincent does not claim, and the record does not reflect, that his VOP sentence exceeded the Level V time originally imposed or the authorized statutory limits. The Superior Court properly stated on the record numerous aggravating circumstances, including lack of amenability, repetitive criminal conduct, and the need for community safety, to justify imposing VOP sentences that exceeded the presumptive standard sentences.
(13) This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded that Vincent's appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable issue. We are also satisfied that Vincent's counsel made a conscientious effort to examine the record and properly determined that Vincent could not raise a meritorious issue in this appeal.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State's motion to affirm is GRANTED. The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. The motion to withdraw is moot.
Page 1 2 Delaware DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|