Munson v. State
| Decision Date | 10 May 1968 |
| Parties | David MUNSON, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Delaware |
Charles K. Keil, Asst. Public Defender, for defendant below, appellant.
Richard G. Elliott, Jr., Deputy Atty. Gen., for plaintiff below, appellee.
The defendant below, David Munson, asks us to reverse an order of the Superior Court revoking probation.
The appellant pleaded guilty on June 21, 1963 to a charge of fourth-degree burglary. He was given a five-year suspended sentence and placed on probation for a five-year period. On June 26, 167, he was tried upon a charge of burglary in the first degree, but was found guilty of the lesser included offense of unlawful breaking and entering. On this same date, he was sentenced to imprisonment for three years on the breaking and entering conviction. His probation was revoked on the earlier charge, and he was given a three-year sentence for it, the two sentences to run concurrently. On November 22, 1967, the Court granted his motion for a new trial on the breaking and entering charge. On December 14, 1967, his motion to restore the probation on the first charge was denied.
Appellant contends that the revocation was illegal in that he was not represented by counsel at the time it was entered, citing Mempa v. Rhay, 389 U.S. 128, 88 S.Ct. 254, 19 L.Ed.2d 336. Assuming that his contention is otherwise sound, we think the alleged error is harmless, in view of the fact that he was represented by counsel at the hearing on his motion to restore probation. At that time, full opportunity was given him and his counsel to demonstrate to the Court that there should be no revocation. The trial Judge heard and considered all reasons advanced and ruled against him.
Appellant seems to assume that the sole reason for the revocation was the new conviction on June 26, 1967. This is untrue, as the trial Judge tried to make plain. The record shows several offenses committed prior to that date, and after the original probation became effective. In December, 1964, he pleaded guilty to contributing to the delinquency of a minor. In September, 1965, he pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct. In December, 1965, he was fined for speeding. In August, 1966, he was fined for leaving the scene of an accident. One or two other very minor charges are in his record.
Appellant points to the fact that the probation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. McGinnis
...has been regarded as an implicit condition of every order of probation.' 24 C.J.S. Criminal Law, § 1571(8), p. 472. See Munson v. State, 242 A.2d 313, 314 (Del.Supr.1968); State v. Chesnut, 11 Utah 2d 142, 145, 356 P.2d 36, 38 (1960); Marshall v. Commonwealth, 202 Va. 217, 219, 116 S.E.2d 2......
-
State v. Holter, 14068
...by the sentencing court or not, is that the defendant shall not violate the law. Wilcox v. State, 395 So.2d 1054 (Ala.1981); Munson v. State, 242 A.2d 313 (Del.1968); State v. McGinnis, 243 N.W.2d 583 (Iowa 1976); State v. Chesnut, 11 Utah 2d 142, 356 P.2d 36 (1960); Coffey v. Commonwealth,......
-
Gabbert v. State, 412
...pursuing probation violation charges against Gabbert. Moreover, there was no prejudice to Gabbert from the delay. See Munson v. State, Del.Supr., 242 A.2d 313, 314 (1968). Accordingly, Gabbert has failed to establish plain error, and his first claim must (7) Gabbert next claims that he was ......
-
State v. Conaway, I.D. No. 1211018844
...to find a [violation of probation] where the probationer merely had been charged with new criminal offenses."); Munson v. State, 242 A.2d 313, 314 (Del. 1968) ("Probation is granted on condition of good conduct during the period thereof."); In re Reed, 1997 WL 524066, at *3 (Del. Super. Jun......