State v. Guilfoil
| Decision Date | 12 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | ID 1407004778 |
| Parties | STATE OF DELAWARE v. DALE GUILFOIL, Defendant. |
| Court | Delaware Superior Court |
Submitted: April 14, 2022
Kristin M. De Walt, Esq., Department of Justice for State of Delaware
Dale Guilfoil, pro se
On this 12th day of May 2022, having considered Defendant Dale Guilfoil's Motion for Postconviction Relief, the Commissioner's Report and Recommendation (the "Report"), Mr. Guilfoirs untimely filed appeal of the Report, and the record in this case, it appears that:
1. On June 3, 2015, a jury found Mr. Guilfoil guilty of one count of Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol. After the jury's verdict, the Court ordered a presentence investigation. When sentencing him for a seventh offense, the Court imposed fifteen years of incarceration, suspended after six-years, to be followed by one year of Level III probation.
2. Immediately after the Department of Correction conditionally released Mr. Guilfoil from his original sentence, he absconded. Probation and Parole apprehended him, and the Court found him in violation of his probation and resentenced him.[1] After completing the Level V portion of that first violation sentence, he violated his probation and conditional release a second time.[2] At a June 2019 hearing addressing the second violations, Mr. Guilfoil admitted them.
He did not appeal the revocation of his conditional release or his probation, but he later appealed a corrected sentencing order intended to ensure that he completed previously ordered substance abuse treatment.[3] On appeal, the Supreme Court remanded the matter and directed the Superior Court to resentence him for his second violation of probation.[4] After the new sentence, Mr. Guilfoil filed another direct appeal.[5] The Delaware Supreme Court then affirmed his new sentence.[6]
3. After Mr. Guilfoil's unsuccessful direct appeal after remand, he filed this postconviction relief motion. The Court referred it to a commissioner for a recommended disposition.[7]
4. While the Commissioner considered the motion, Mr. Guilfoil completed the Level V portion of the sentence he now challenges. As a result, before the Commissioner issued the Report, Mr. Guilfoil was again released on probation. In short order after his release from Level V, Probation and Parole charged him with a third violation of probation because he continued using alcohol and drugs, he continued to drive illegally, and he refused to engage in treatment.[8] On March 4, 2022, the Court found him to be in violation a third time.[9] On that day, the Court resentenced him to an additional unsuspended eighteen months at Level V, followed by one year at Level IV.[10] The Level V and IV portions of his sentence are subject to suspension after he completes rehabilitative programming at each level.[11]
5. Approximately two weeks after the Court issued its new sentence, the Commissioner issued her Report addressing the previous violation of probation sentence. In her Report, she explained why she recommends that the Court deny his motion on both procedural and substantive grounds.
6. Within a few days of when the Commissioner issued the Report Mr. Guilfoil wrote the Court. In his letter, he explained that upon release "I will enjoy my right to drink a cold beer" regardless of the amount of treatment the Court orders.[12] He also inquired about the status of his previously filed motion for postconviction relief.[13]
7. Several weeks later, Mr. Guilfoil attempted to appeal the Report, well after the ten-day deadline provided by court rule.[14] Accordingly, his appeal is untimely. Nevertheless, in the alternative, even if the Court were to consider it, his filing raises no issues apart from those that the Commissioner correctly addressed.[15]
8. In the Court's review, it has considered the Report, the parties' positions, and the record. It denies Mr. Guilfoil's motion for postconviction relief on two bases. First, the Commissioner fully and correctly addressed Mr. Guilfoil's arguments in her Report. Second, independent of the Commissioner's analysis, the sentence he challenges no longer exists. Namely, after the Court found him to be in violation of probation a third time, it revoked his probation and resentenced him. Accordingly, his motion is moot because his current sentence supersedes the one he seeks to challenge.
NOW, THEREFORE, after a de novo review of the record in this matter, a review of the Commissioner's Report and Recommendation dated March 15, 2022, and a full consideration of Mr. Guilfoil's position:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court adopts the Commissioner's Report and Recommendation attached as Exhibit "A" in its entirety. Mr. Guilfoil's Motion for Postconviction Relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 is DENIED (1) for the reasons set forth in that Report, and (2) because his motion is moot because of his subsequent sentencing.
Upon Guilfoil's Motion For Postconviction Relief Pursuant To Superior Court Criminal Rule 61
On June 3, 2015, Dale Guilfoil ("Guilfoil") was found guilty as charged following a jury trial, of one count of Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol 7th Offense, 21 Del C.§ 4177 (d)(8). The court ordered a presentence investigation and on July 28, 2015, the court sentenced Guilfoil to fifteen years of incarceration suspended after six years incarceration for Level III probation. A timely notice of appeal was filed with the State Supreme Court. The Supreme Court affirmed Guilfoil's conviction and on March 11, 2016.[1]
On November 19, 2018, shortly after his release from incarceration, on a conditional release, Guilfoil was found guilty of violating his probation due to his never reporting to probation following his release from Level V. Guilfoil was sentenced to incarceration suspended immediately for Level III Probation. On June 5, 2019, Guilfoil's probation officer filed an administrative warrant with the court, requesting that a conditional release and violation of probation hearing be scheduled due to Guilfoil's non-compliance with his probation. The court set Guilfoil's bail at $10, 000 cash only and the hearing was held on June 28, 2019. Guilfoil admitted to being in violation of his probation. The court revoked his conditional release and found Guilfoil in violation of his probation. The "notes" section of the sentencing order court provided that Guilfoil was required to complete the Key program while at Level V, but did not specify whether that requirement applied to the conditional release revocation or the VOP.
On July 22, 2019, the Department of Corrections ("DOC") sent a letter to the Superior Court advising that there was insufficient time in Guilfoil's sentence to allow completion to the Key program while he was at Level V. DOC requested that the court accept completion of the Reflections program instead of Key. The Superior Court denied the request and on August 5, 2019, issued a corrected VOP sentence order. Under the August 5, 2019, order, Guilfoil was required to remain at Level V until he successfully completed the Key program.
Guilfoil filed an untimely notice of appeal from the June 28, 2019, sentencing order on August 5, 2019. He filed an amended notice of appeal from the August 5, 2019, order on August 22, 2019. On appeal, Guilfoil challenged the July 22, 2019, VOP finding and the August 5, 2019, corrected sentencing order. The State argued that the Superior Court did not err in finding Guilfoil had violated his probation, but conceded that the Superior Court erroneously entered the August 5, 2019 order without holding a hearing at which Guilfoil had the opportunity to be present with counsel.
The Supreme Court held that Guilfoil's failure to file a timely notice of appeal from the June 28, 2019, VOP proceedings precluded appellate review of his claims challenging the VOP finding.[2] The Court noted that the August 5, 2019, order appeared to increase the Level V time that Guilfoil would be required to serve, and Guilfoil was not present when the court imposed that sentence.[3] Accordingly, the Court vacated the August 5, 2019 sentencing order and remanded the matter for further proceedings in the Superior Court.[4] The Superior Court held a hearing on July 2, 2020. Guilfoil's counsel, a DOC counselor, and Guilfoil informed the court that he was close to completing the Key program before he was removed in June for unspecified disciplinary infractions. Guilfoil also told the court that he hoped to maintain his sobriety with Vivitrol medication. The Superior Court modified Guilfoil's VOP sentence to seven years and ten months of Level V incarceration, suspended for one year of Level IV Crest, suspended after successful completion for one year of Level III intensive outpatient treatment. The sentence for the conditional release violation remained unchanged, with a maximum release date of July 5, 2020.[5]
Next, Guilfoil filed a timely appeal for the July 2, 2020 re-sentencing. The Supreme court affirmed Guilfoil's sentence stating:
To continue reading
Request your trial