(a) When imprisonment is a part of the sentence, the term shall be fixed, and the time of its commencement and ending specified. An act to be done at the expiration of a term of imprisonment shall be done on the last day thereof, unless it be Sunday, and in that case, the day previous. Months shall be reckoned as calendar months.
(b) All sentences for criminal offenses of persons who at the time sentence is imposed are held in custody in default of bail, or otherwise, shall begin to run and be computed from the date of incarceration for the offense for which said sentence shall be imposed, unless the person sentenced shall then be undergoing imprisonment under a sentence imposed for any other offense or offenses, in which case the said sentence shall begin to run and be computed, either from the date of imposition thereof or from the expiration of such other sentence or sentences, as the court shall, in its discretion, direct.
(c) Any period of actual incarceration of a person awaiting trial, who thereafter before trial or sentence succeeds in securing provisional liberty on bail, shall be credited to the person in determining the termination date of sentence. Where a prisoner is hospitalized, the time spent in an institution under involuntary restraint is to be credited to the person when calculating the sentence under this subsection.
(d) The court shall direct whether the sentence of confinement of any criminal defendant by any court of this State shall be made to run concurrently or consecutively with any other sentence of confinement imposed on such criminal defendant. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no sentence of confinement of any criminal defendant by any court of this State shall be made to run concurrently with any other sentence of confinement imposed on such criminal defendant for any conviction of the following crimes:
|
Title 11, Section
|
Crime
|
| 606 |
Abuse of a pregnant female in the first degree |
| 613 |
Assault in the first degree |
| 635 |
Murder in the second degree |
| 636 |
Murder in the first degree |
| 772 |
Rape in the second degree |
| 773 |
Rape in the first degree |
| 777A |
Sex offender unlawful sexual conduct against a child |
| 778(1), (2) or (3) |
Sexual abuse of a child by a person in a position of trust, authority or supervision in the first degree |
| 783A |
Kidnapping in the first degree |
| 1254 |
Assault in a detention facility |
| 1447A |
Possession of a firearm or projectile weapon during the commission of a felony if the firearm or projectile weapon was used, displayed, or discharged during the commission of a Title 11 or Title 31 violent felony as set forth in § 4201(c) of this title. |
Notwithstanding the foregoing, where there are multiple victims, any sentence for each victim shall be consecutive to one another for the following crimes:
|
Title 11, Section
|
Crime
|
| 632 |
Manslaughter |
(e) [Repealed.]
Code 1852,
§§
2931, 2932;
Code 1915,
§
4813;
Code 1935,
§
5301;
11 Del. C. 1953,
§
3902;
49 Del. Laws, c. 244;
60 Del. Laws, c. 308,
§§
1, 2;
61 Del. Laws, c. 158,
§
1;
70 Del. Laws, c. 186,
§
1;
79 Del. Laws, c. 297,
§
1;
82 Del. Laws, c. 66,
§
1;
84 Del. Laws, c. 525,
§
25;
Notes of Decisions
State v. Dickerson (1972)
del · cites it 6×
“§ 571) 1 and our Recommendation of Mercy Statute (11 Del.C. § 3901), 2 in the light of the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court in Furman v.”
State v. Waddell (1973)
nc · cites it 3×
“Are the discretionary mercy provisions of 11 Del.C. § 3901 unconstitutional under Furman v.”
State v. Spence (1976)
del · cites it 2×
“§ 571) 3 defining that offense and prescribing death as the penalty upon conviction, and a Mercy Statute (11 Del.C. § 3901) 4 providing for life imprisonment instead of the death penalty if the jury recommended mercy and the Trial Judge concurred.”
Parson v. State (1971)
del
“Finally, in this connection, Parson argues that his amnesia destroyed his ability to present circumstances to the jury which might have resulted in a recommendation of mercy pursuant to 11 Del.C. § 3901. The argument is that any attempt to show Parson’s past history, his sexual…”
United States Ex Rel. Parson v. Anderson (1972)
ded
“” Section 571 was applied in conjunction with 11 Del.C. § 3901 (1970 Supp.) which reads: “In all cases where the penalty for crimes ascribed by the laws of this State is death, if the jury, at the time of rendering their verdict, recommends the defendant to the mercy of the…”
Harris v. State (1972)
del
“For capital cases, 11 Del.C. § 3901, like § 781, provides: “§ 3901.”
Hoover v. Snyder (1995)
ded · cites it 2×
“Here, it appears that petitioner is arguing that Judge Graves interpreted 11 Del.C. § 3901(b) or (e) incorrectly when he resentenced petitioner on November 19, 1993.”
Johnson v. State (1973)
del
“This suggests that the jury misunderstood 11 Del.C. § 3901 [since held unconstitutional: State v.”
Fisher v. Carroll (2005)
ded
“Given that Delaware law prohibits concurrent criminal sentences, 11 Del. C. Ann. § 3901(d), and Petitioner was incarcerated by New Jersey 9 from September 30, 1993 until October 31, 2000, Petitioner could not begin serving his Delaware sentence until he finished serving his New…”
State v. Smith (1974)
del
“” 11 Del.C. § 3901 provided: § 3901. Recommendation of mercy In all cases where the penalty for crimes prescribed by the laws of this! State is death, if the jury, at the time of rendering their verdict, recommends the defendant to the mercy of the Court, the Court may, if it…”
State v. Thomas (2019)
delsuperct · cites it 6×
“In the instant Motion, Defendant asks the Court for an “opportunity” to modify his sentences, apply the 2019 changes to 11 Del. C. § 3901,° and reduce his Level 5 time.”
State v. York-James (2020)
delsuperct · cites it 4×
“Defendant’s reference to “House Bill 5,”!° seemingly requesting this Court modify his Level V sentences to run concurrently is without merit, as it requires the retroactive application of 11 Del.”
— 11 Del. C. § 3901(6) — 1 case
— 11 Del. C. § 3901(b) — 9 cases
Hoover v. Snyder (1995)
ded
“Here, it appears that petitioner is arguing that Judge Graves interpreted 11 Del.C. § 3901(b) or (e) incorrectly when he resentenced petitioner on November 19, 1993.”
— 11 Del. C. § 3901(c) — 12 cases
— 11 Del. C. § 3901(d) — 53 cases
Fisher v. Carroll (2005)
ded
“Given that Delaware law prohibits concurrent criminal sentences, 11 Del. C. Ann. § 3901(d), and Petitioner was incarcerated by New Jersey 9 from September 30, 1993 until October 31, 2000, Petitioner could not begin serving his Delaware sentence until he finished serving his New…”
State v. Thomas (2019)
delsuperct
“In the instant Motion, Defendant asks the Court for an “opportunity” to modify his sentences, apply the 2019 changes to 11 Del. C. § 3901,° and reduce his Level 5 time.”
— 11 Del. C. § 3901(d)(2014) — 1 case
— 11 Del. C. § 3901(e) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.