 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Moore v. State1/9/2002
) Furthermore, the record does not support Moore's contention that the Superior Court failed to credit him with all of the time to which he was entitled. After finding Moore in violation of his probation, the Superior Court was authorized to reimpose any portion of the previously suspended two and a half year prison term that had been imposed on September 29, 2000. The Superior Court's two year sentence for Moore's second VOP inherently gave credit to Moore for the time he spent at Level V awaiting placement at Level IV on his first VOP sentence. Accordingly, we find no merit to Moore's contention that he did not receive credit for all the time he previously served at Level V.
(11) Finally, Moore's complaint about the Superior Court's sentence for his first VOP, which was imposed on September 29, 2000, is untimely. Moore could have appealed from that sentence but did not. He is no longer in custody as a result of that sentence. Accordingly, there is no basis for this Court to review his untimely complaint.
(12) Moore next asserts that there was no probable cause to arrest him and that the Superior Court's finding of a probation violation was the result of untrustworthy testimony. Moore contends that Officer Bunora's testimony was inconsistent. Even assuming without deciding that Officer Bunora's testimony contained inconsistencies, those inconsistencies were for the Superior Court, as the fact finder, to resolve in its discretion. We find no abuse of the Superior Court's discretion. The Superior Court's finding of a probation violation is amply supported by the record.
(13) Finally, Moore asserts that, because he was represented by several different attorneys during the VOP process, he did not receive effective assistance of counsel. Representation by different attorneys at different stages of the adjudicative process does not deprive a defendant of the right to the effective assistance of counsel so long as each attorney is adequately informed. In order to prevail on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Moore must show that his lawyers' representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that, but for his lawyers' unprofessional errors, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different. Moore has failed to substantiate any specific claim of error by any of his lawyers that resulted in prejudice to him. Accordingly, we find no merit to Moore's allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel.
(14) The Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded that Moore's appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable issue. We also are satisfied that Moore's counsel has made a conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly determined that Moore could not raise a meritorious claim 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 3 Delaware DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|