State v. Rogers, Case No. 0804005406 (Del.Gen.Sess. 4/8/2010), Case No. 0804005406.
| Decision Date | 08 April 2010 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 0804005406. |
| Parties | State of Delaware, v. Charles L. Rogers. |
| Court | Court of General Sessions of Delaware |
Sonia Augusthy, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, 820 N. French Street, 7th floor, Wilmington, DE 19801, Attorney for the State.
Louis B. Ferrara, Esquire, Ferrara & Haley, 1716 Wawaset Street, P.O. Box 188, Wilmington, DE 19899-0188, Attorney for the Defendant.
Dear Counsel:
The defendant, Charles L. Rogers (hereinafter "Rogers"), was arrested on April 5, 2008 for the offense of Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol ("DUI") in violation of 21 Del. C. § 4177 (a) and seven (7) other traffic violations. Trial was held on March 8, 2010, in the Court of Common Pleas, New Castle County, State of Delaware. Rogers was found guilty of DUI and three other traffic violations. The Court moved to sentencing immediately following trial and the State attempted to have Rogers sentenced as a second offender.1 Challenges to previous convictions are governed by 21 Del. C. § 4177B (e) (5), which states:
A person may not challenge the validity of any prior or previous conviction, unless that person first successfully challenges the prior or previous conviction in the court in which the conviction arose and provides written notice of the specific nature of the challenge in the present proceeding to the prosecution at least 20 days before trial.
The State moved to have Rogers sentenced as a second-offender for the offense of DUI pursuant to 21 Del. C. § 4177 (d) (2) on the basis of a prior convection of DUI in Delaware stemming from a May 7, 2004 arrest. Rogers does not dispute that the offense is a qualifying first offense and the date of the prior conviction comes within the statutory five (5) year period for second offense treatment under 21 Del. C. § 4177 (d) (2). However, Rogers argues the Attorney General is required to enter into the record at sentencing, a certified copy of Defendant's driving record which shows the prior conviction for a violation of 21 Del. C. § 4177 when the State is seeking penalties as a second offender.
Rogers argues the State's reliance upon a computer print-out of his motor vehicle record, included within the Court's file, is insufficient and unreliable to show a prior conviction. He argues that the State has the burden of proving a prior offense as a prerequisite to seek enhanced penalties as a second offender; and without a certified driving record, the State cannot meet that burden. The State counters that the print-out is sufficient, since it is generated by the Court staff and is routinely relied upon by the Court and the parties as record of prior traffic offenses. Additionally, the State has attached a copy of Defendant's certified driving record to its brief. The certified driving record is consistent with the computer print-out included in the Court's file indicating that Defendant has a prior qualifying conviction and the conviction at issue is a second offense.
Delaware law affords the sentencing judge broad discretion in admitting and considering evidence presented at sentencing.2 The due process clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits a criminal defendant from being sentenced on the basis of information which lacks minimal indicia of reliability.3 In dealing with facts at sentencing, the U.S. Supreme Court has held it is appropriate that facts relevant to sentencing be proved by a preponderance of the evidence and that this standard generally satisfies due process.4 The Delaware Supreme Court has recognized that "[c]ourt records are entitled to a presumption of regulatiry."5 At sentencing, the Court commonly relies upon court records and computer print-outs for criminal history and driving records.
The computer generated print-out is a record obtained through the Delaware Criminal Justice Information System ("DELJIS"). DELJIS is a state agency charged with maintaining an accurate and efficient criminal justice information system to meet the needs of criminal justice agencies.6 Its duty is imposed by statute which also imposes obligations and penalties for misuse or inappropriate distribution. Traffic convictions, including DUI convictions, are required to be reported to and maintained by DMV pursuant to the Department of Public Safety and 21 Del. C. § 4177 (j). There has been no evidence produced that the computer print-outs included in the Court's files lack "minimal indicia of reliability."
Defendant relies on State v. Wise to support his claim that the State is required to produce a certified driving record to seek second offender status during sentencing.7 In Wise, the Defendant pled guilty to DUI.8 The State...
To continue reading
Request your trial