(a) Where an inmate is serving a sentence to Level V (incarceration) imposed not under the Truth in Sentencing Act of 1989 and receives a subsequent sentence to Level V under the provisions of the Truth in Sentencing Act, serving of the earlier sentence shall be suspended and the inmate shall serve the new Level V sentence until it is completed and then resume serving the original sentence.
(b) Where an inmate is serving a “nonmandatory” Level V (incarceration) sentence and is subsequently sentenced to a mandatory term of incarceration, serving of the earlier sentence shall be suspended and the inmate shall serve the new mandatory Level V sentence until it is completed and then resume serving the earlier sentence.
(c) Where an inmate is serving Level V (incarceration) sentence or sentences imposed not under the Truth in Sentencing Act of 1989, and is subsequently sentenced to Level V under the provisions of the Truth in Sentencing Act and had less than an aggregate 3 years remaining on the prior sentence or sentences, the court at the time of sentencing under the Truth in Sentencing Act may in its discretion suspend the remainder of the prior non-Truth in Sentencing Level V sentence or sentences, unless such sentence was a statutory mandatory term.
(d) Any individual convicted of a crime on or after January 1, 1990, which crime occurred prior to June 30, 1990, may elect to be sentenced under the provisions of the Truth in Sentencing Act of 1989 rather than under the prior provisions of this title.
67 Del. Laws, c. 130,
§
14;
67 Del. Laws, c. 350,
§§
3, 28;
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1998–2025 · leading case:
Snyder v. Andrews, 708 A.2d 237 (Del. 1998).
Snyder v. Andrews, 708 A.2d 237 (Del. 1998).
· cites it 8× “The Department argues that this would be contrary to 11 Del.C. § 4216, that mandates that an inmate’s sentence imposed after the Act must be served first until it is completed before the resumption of any sentence imposed before the Act.”
Fisher v. Carroll, 375 F. Supp. 2d 385 (D. Del. 2005).
“The sentence order's language reflects the requirement contained in 11 Del. C. Ann. § 4216(a) regarding the service of TIS and non-TIS sentences.”
Walls v. State (Del. 2019).
· cites it 4× “The State has moved to affirm the judgment below on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Walls’s opening brief that his appeal is without merit.”
Miles v. Williams, 386 F. Supp. 2d 582 (D. Del. 2005).
“See 11 Del. C. Ann. § 4216 (transition provisions); Watson v.”
Smith v. State (Del. 2018).
· cites it 2× “As such, the DOC resolved the conflict in the effective dates of the sentences by following the express language of 11 Del. C. § 4216(b), which “requires the interruption of a non-mandatory sentence for service of a subsequently imposed mandatory sentence, with resumption of the…”
State of Delaware v. Tollis. (Del. Super. Ct. 2016).
“130, § 16 (1989) (Section 4217 was first designated as 11 Del. C. § 4216). -12- incarcerative term of greater than a year.”
Ward v. Dep't of Corr. (Del. Super. Ct. 2018).
“The test for dismissal under Superior Court Rule 12(b)(6) is whether the plaintiff may recover under any reasonably conceivable set of circumstances susceptible of proof under the complaint.”
State v. Colon (Del. Super. Ct. 2019).
“” support of his motion, Defendant states the following grounds for relief: (1) “time served” — Defendant argues that he was sentenced to one year at Level III and has completed that sentence; (2) “conditional release” — Defendant argues that his conditional release was affected…”
IMO Duffy (Del. 2020).
“2 See 11 Del. C. § 4216(a) (“Where an inmate is serving a sentence to Level V (incarceration) imposed not under the Truth in Sentencing Act of 1989 and receives a subsequent sentence to Level V under the provisions of the Truth in Sentencing Act, serving of the earlier sentence…”
Gattis v. State (Del. 2025).
“(5) In 2024, Gattis moved for a new sentencing order reflecting his election under 11 Del. C. § 4216(d) to be sentenced under the pre-TIS Act provisions of Title 11.”
— 11 Del. C. § 4216(a) — 3 cases
Snyder v. Andrews, 708 A.2d 237 (Del. 1998).
“The Department argues that this would be contrary to 11 Del.C. § 4216, that mandates that an inmate’s sentence imposed after the Act must be served first until it is completed before the resumption of any sentence imposed before the Act.”
Fisher v. Carroll, 375 F. Supp. 2d 385 (D. Del. 2005).
“The sentence order's language reflects the requirement contained in 11 Del. C. Ann. § 4216(a) regarding the service of TIS and non-TIS sentences.”
IMO Duffy (Del. 2020).
“2 See 11 Del. C. § 4216(a) (“Where an inmate is serving a sentence to Level V (incarceration) imposed not under the Truth in Sentencing Act of 1989 and receives a subsequent sentence to Level V under the provisions of the Truth in Sentencing Act, serving of the earlier sentence…”
— 11 Del. C. § 4216(b) — 2 cases
Smith v. State (Del. 2018).
“As such, the DOC resolved the conflict in the effective dates of the sentences by following the express language of 11 Del. C. § 4216(b), which “requires the interruption of a non-mandatory sentence for service of a subsequently imposed mandatory sentence, with resumption of the…”
State v. Colon (Del. Super. Ct. 2019).
“” support of his motion, Defendant states the following grounds for relief: (1) “time served” — Defendant argues that he was sentenced to one year at Level III and has completed that sentence; (2) “conditional release” — Defendant argues that his conditional release was affected…”
— 11 Del. C. § 4216(d) — 2 cases
Walls v. State (Del. 2019).
“The State has moved to affirm the judgment below on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Walls’s opening brief that his appeal is without merit.”
Gattis v. State (Del. 2025).
“(5) In 2024, Gattis moved for a new sentencing order reflecting his election under 11 Del. C. § 4216(d) to be sentenced under the pre-TIS Act provisions of Title 11.”
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.