Porter v. State

Supreme Court of Delaware

Porter v. State

225 A.2d 490, 1966 Del. LEXIS 155

CourtSupreme Court of Delaware

DecidedDecember 20, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 225 A.2d 490 (Porter v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Porter v. State, 225 A.2d 490, 1966 Del. LEXIS 155 (Del. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

HERRMANN, Justice:

On February 8,1963, after having pleaded guilty to burglary charges, the defendant Herbert J. Porter was sentenced to a term of three years imprisonment commencing on July 21, 1962

* and ending July 20, 1965. On May 28, 1963, upon petition of the defendant, the sentence was suspended and he was placed on probation for five years. On May 11, 1966, probation was revoked and the three year sentence was reimposed. In so doing, the sentencing judge stated that the termination date of the imprisonment would be July 20, 1966. Later, the sentencing judge entered an Order changing the expiration date to July 6, 1968. The defendant moved to correct or reduce the sentence under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35, Del.C.Ann., contending that the change of date amounted to an illegal increase of sentence. This motion was denied and the defendant appeals.

It is clear from the transcript of the proceedings on May 11, 1966 that the sentencing judge reimposed the three year sentence which had previously been suspended; that the reference to July 20, 1966 was pure inadvertence. The subsequent correction of that inadvertence did not constitute an increase of the sentence.

When incarceration is a part of a sentence, the court is required by Statute to specify the “term” of imprisonment imposed and “the time of its commencement and ending.” 11 Del.C. § 3902. Under a time-honored interpretation of that statutory requirement it has been held that, in the event of conflict, the term of imprisonment imposed, and not the specification of dates, controls. McCoy v. State, 9 Houst. 433, 9 A. 416 (1886); State v. Wood, 2 W.W. Harr. 556, 127 A. 287 (1924). We adhere to that rule.

The authorities cited by the defendant are inapposite because they relate to sentences which were increased. We hold here that the change of termination date by the sentencing judge was a permissible correction of an inadvertence resulting in conflict between term and date — not an increase of sentence.

The Order below is affirmed.

Obviously, credit was given under 11 Del.C. § 3902(b) for a period of incarceration prior to sentence.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

HERRMANN, Justice:

On February 8,1963, after having pleaded guilty to burglary charges, the defendant Herbert J. Porter was sentenced to a term of three years imprisonment commencing on July 21, 1962

* and ending July 20, 1965. On May 28, 1963, upon petition of the defendant, the sentence was suspended and he was placed on probation for five years. On May 11, 1966, probation was revoked and the three year sentence was reimposed. In so doing, the sentencing judge stated that the termination date of the imprisonment would be July 20, 1966. Later, the sentencing judge entered an Order changing the expiration date to July 6, 1968. The defendant moved to correct or reduce the sentence under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35, Del.C.Ann., contending that the change of date amounted to an illegal increase of sentence. This motion was denied and the defendant appeals.

It is clear from the transcript of the proceedings on May 11, 1966 that the sentencing judge reimposed the three year sentence which had previously been suspended; that the reference to July 20, 1966 was pure inadvertence. The subsequent correction of that inadvertence did not constitute an increase of the sentence.

When incarceration is a part of a sentence, the court is required by Statute to specify the “term” of imprisonment imposed and “the time of its commencement and ending.” 11 Del.C. § 3902. Under a time-honored interpretation of that statutory requirement it has been held that, in the event of conflict, the term of imprisonment imposed, and not the specification of dates, controls. McCoy v. State, 9 Houst. 433, 9 A. 416 (1886); State v. Wood, 2 W.W. Harr. 556, 127 A. 287 (1924). We adhere to that rule.

The authorities cited by the defendant are inapposite because they relate to sentences which were increased. We hold here that the change of termination date by the sentencing judge was a permissible correction of an inadvertence resulting in conflict between term and date — not an increase of sentence.

The Order below is affirmed.

Obviously, credit was given under 11 Del.C. § 3902(b) for a period of incarceration prior to sentence.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.2d 490, 1966 Del. LEXIS 155, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/porter-v-state-del-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack