VOP hearing in Delaware

2026The VOP hearing transcript reflects that Cherricks’ probation officer was different than the TASC officer who testified. (10) Turning to Cherricks’ challenges to his VOP sentence, this Court’s appellate review of a sentence is extremely limited and generally ends upon a determination that the sentence is within statutory limits.3 When the sentence falls 1 Kurzmann v. State, 903 A.2d 702, 716 (Del. 2006) (internal quotations omitted). 2 See, e.g., Powel v. State, 314 A.3d 664 , 2024 WL 707190 , at *2 (Del.

2026The VOP hearing transcript reflects that Cherricks’ probation officer was different than the TASC officer who testified. (10) Turning to Cherricks’ challenges to his VOP sentence, this Court’s appellate review of a sentence is extremely limited and generally ends upon a determination that the sentence is within statutory limits.3 When the sentence falls 1 Kurzmann v. State, 903 A.2d 702, 716 (Del. 2006) (internal quotations omitted). 2 See, e.g., Powel v. State, 314 A.3d 664 , 2024 WL 707190 , at *2 (Del.

2024This Court’s appellate review of a sentence is extremely limited and generally ends upon a determination that the sentence is within statutory limits.5 When the sentence falls within the statutory limits, “we consider only whether it is based on factual 3 The transcript of the VOP hearing reflects that Berry fled the courthouse before the hearing commenced, was caught by his probation officer and Capitol Police, and was brought back to the courthouse for the hearing. 4 Collins v. State, 897 A.2d 159, 161 (Del. 2006). 5 Kurzmann v. State, 903 A.2d at 714 . 5 predicates which are false, impermis

2024This Court’s appellate review of a sentence is extremely limited and generally ends upon a determination that the sentence is within statutory limits.5 When the sentence falls within the statutory limits, “we consider only whether it is based on factual 3 The transcript of the VOP hearing reflects that Berry fled the courthouse before the hearing commenced, was caught by his probation officer and Capitol Police, and was brought back to the courthouse for the hearing. 4 Collins v. State, 897 A.2d 159, 161 (Del. 2006). 5 Kurzmann v. State, 903 A.2d at 714 . 5 predicates which are false, impermis

2024C. § 4334(c); Pavulak v. State, 880 A.2d 1044, 1046 (Del. 2005). 3 Weston v. State, 832 A.2d 742, 746 (Del. 2003). 4 Although we find no merit to Ramos’s argument that the VOP hearing was unnecessarily delayed, Ramos is, of course, entitled to credit for the time during which he was incarcerated awaiting the hearing. 4

2024C. § 4334(c); Pavulak v. State, 880 A.2d 1044, 1046 (Del. 2005). 3 Weston v. State, 832 A.2d 742, 746 (Del. 2003). 4 Although we find no merit to Ramos’s argument that the VOP hearing was unnecessarily delayed, Ramos is, of course, entitled to credit for the time during which he was incarcerated awaiting the hearing. 4

2022However, we note that although Williams claims that he was not told that he had to report to probation on the dates specified in the initial VOP report, William acknowledges that his probation officer testified at the VOP hearing that Williams had failed to report his change of address as required by 3 Desmond v. State, 654 A. 2d 821, 829 (Del. 1994). 4 Trioche v. State, 525 A.2d 151, 154 (Del. 1987). 3 the sex-offender-registration statute.

2022However, we note that although Williams claims that he was not told that he had to report to probation on the dates specified in the initial VOP report, William acknowledges that his probation officer testified at the VOP hearing that Williams had failed to report his change of address as required by 3 Desmond v. State, 654 A. 2d 821, 829 (Del. 1994). 4 Trioche v. State, 525 A.2d 151, 154 (Del. 1987). 3 the sex-offender-registration statute.

2024C. § 4334(c); Pavulak v. State, 880 A.2d 1044, 1046 (Del. 2005). 3 Weston v. State, 832 A.2d 742, 746 (Del. 2003). 4 Although we find no merit to Ramos’s argument that the VOP hearing was unnecessarily delayed, Ramos is, of course, entitled to credit for the time during which he was incarcerated awaiting the hearing. 4

2024C. § 4334(c); Pavulak v. State, 880 A.2d 1044, 1046 (Del. 2005). 3 Weston v. State, 832 A.2d 742, 746 (Del. 2003). 4 Although we find no merit to Ramos’s argument that the VOP hearing was unnecessarily delayed, Ramos is, of course, entitled to credit for the time during which he was incarcerated awaiting the hearing. 4

2024In a VOP hearing, unlike a criminal trial, the State is only required to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated the terms of probation.1 A preponderance of the evidence means “some competent evidence” to prove the violation asserted.2 At 1 Kurzmann v. State, 903 A.2d 702, 716 (Del. 2006). 2 Brown v. State, 249 A.2d 269, 272 (Del. 1968). 4 the VOP hearing,3 Berry initially denied the allegations in the VOP report and TASC’s memorandum.

2024In a VOP hearing, unlike a criminal trial, the State is only required to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated the terms of probation.1 A preponderance of the evidence means “some competent evidence” to prove the violation asserted.2 At 1 Kurzmann v. State, 903 A.2d 702, 716 (Del. 2006). 2 Brown v. State, 249 A.2d 269, 272 (Del. 1968). 4 the VOP hearing,3 Berry initially denied the allegations in the VOP report and TASC’s memorandum.

2020The transcript of the VOP hearing reflects that the 9 Mayes v. State, 604 A.2d 839, 842 (Del. 1992). 10 Kurzmann, 903 A.2d at 714 . 11 11 Del.

2020The transcript of the VOP hearing reflects that the 9 Mayes v. State, 604 A.2d 839, 842 (Del. 1992). 10 Kurzmann, 903 A.2d at 714 . 11 11 Del.

2020Aug. 19, 2014). 3 Id. 4 Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998). 5 Id. 6 Wynn v. State, 23 A.3d 145, 150-51 (Del. 2011).

2018A motion for correction of sentence is very narrow in scope.1 It is not a means to challenge the legality of a conviction or to raise allegations of error occurring in the proceedings 1 Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998). 2 before the imposition of sentence.2 Thus, we reject Boone’s attempt to attack the validity of his VOP adjudication by arguing that the State presented irrelevant and prejudicial evidence at his VOP hearing. (5) Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a) permits relief when “the sentence imposed exceeds the statutorily-authorized limits, [or] violates the Double Jeo

2022He requests a lesser sentence with no probation so he can return to Florida. (6) We review the Superior Court’s finding of a VOP for abuse of discretion.1 Unlike a criminal trial, the State is only required to prove a VOP by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated the terms of his probation.2 A preponderance of evidence means “some competent evidence” to “reasonably satisfy the judge that the conduct of the probationer has not been as good as required by the conditions of probation.”3 Regardless of Fray’s new claims on appeal, his admission to a program violation at the VOP

2022He requests a lesser sentence with no probation so he can return to Florida. (6) We review the Superior Court’s finding of a VOP for abuse of discretion.1 Unlike a criminal trial, the State is only required to prove a VOP by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated the terms of his probation.2 A preponderance of evidence means “some competent evidence” to “reasonably satisfy the judge that the conduct of the probationer has not been as good as required by the conditions of probation.”3 Regardless of Fray’s new claims on appeal, his admission to a program violation at the VOP

2022However, we note that although Williams claims that he was not told that he had to report to probation on the dates specified in the initial VOP report, William acknowledges that his probation officer testified at the VOP hearing that Williams had failed to report his change of address as required by 3 Desmond v. State, 654 A. 2d 821, 829 (Del. 1994). 4 Trioche v. State, 525 A.2d 151, 154 (Del. 1987). 3 the sex-offender-registration statute.

2022However, we note that although Williams claims that he was not told that he had to report to probation on the dates specified in the initial VOP report, William acknowledges that his probation officer testified at the VOP hearing that Williams had failed to report his change of address as required by 3 Desmond v. State, 654 A. 2d 821, 829 (Del. 1994). 4 Trioche v. State, 525 A.2d 151, 154 (Del. 1987). 3 the sex-offender-registration statute.

2018Jenkins was found to have violated his probation, however, and appealed that finding to this Court. 15 Id. 16 Id. at *2. 17 Id. 18 Jenkins v. State, 8 A.3d 1147 (Del. 2010). 13 In summarizing the first VOP proceeding, this Court observed that it had affirmed the earlier VOP determination, “holding that Jenkins had waived his right to present a motion to suppress in the 2005 VOP hearing.”19 Jenkins argued in the 2010 case that the Superior Court should have considered his motion to suppress at the VOP hearing.

2018Jenkins was found to have violated his probation, however, and appealed that finding to this Court. 15 Id. 16 Id. at *2. 17 Id. 18 Jenkins v. State, 8 A.3d 1147 (Del. 2010). 13 In summarizing the first VOP proceeding, this Court observed that it had affirmed the earlier VOP determination, “holding that Jenkins had waived his right to present a motion to suppress in the 2005 VOP hearing.”19 Jenkins argued in the 2010 case that the Superior Court should have considered his motion to suppress at the VOP hearing.

2024The sentence is appropriate for all the reasons stated at the VOP hearing. 11 Id. 12 Id. 13 State v. Redden, 111 A.3d 602, 609 (2015). 14 D.I. 16. 15 Id.

2024The sentence is appropriate for all the reasons stated at the VOP hearing. 11 Id. 12 Id. 13 State v. Redden, 111 A.3d 602, 609 (2015). 14 D.I. 16. 15 Id.

2022Jan. 21, 2021); Thompson v. State, 2016 WL 4427177, at *2 (Del.

2022Jan. 21, 2021); Thompson v. State, 2016 WL 4427177, at *2 (Del.

2020Shepherd’s admission to violating his probation constitutes sufficient evidence to sustain the Superior Court’s finding of a VOP.4 (7) As to Shepherd’s claim regarding his sentence, this Court’s appellate review of a sentence is extremely limited and generally ends upon a determination that the sentence is within statutory limits.5 Once Shepherd committed a VOP, the Superior Court was authorized to impose any period of incarceration up to and including the balance of Level V time remaining on his sentence.6 The record does not reflect, and Shepherd does not allege, that the VOP sentence exceed

2020Shepherd’s admission to violating his probation constitutes sufficient evidence to sustain the Superior Court’s finding of a VOP.4 (7) As to Shepherd’s claim regarding his sentence, this Court’s appellate review of a sentence is extremely limited and generally ends upon a determination that the sentence is within statutory limits.5 Once Shepherd committed a VOP, the Superior Court was authorized to impose any period of incarceration up to and including the balance of Level V time remaining on his sentence.6 The record does not reflect, and Shepherd does not allege, that the VOP sentence exceed

2019He received a separate and distinct sentence for the crimes 7 McDougal, 2011 WL 4921345, at *2 (“The transcript of McDougal’s March 2, 2011 VOP hearing reflects that … [McDougal] was afforded the due process to which he was entitled in a VOP proceeding.”). 8 Dorman v. State, 2001 WL 233655 , at *2 (Del.

2015The Delaware Supreme Court on Defendant’s direct appeal has also already held that there was more than ample support in the VOP hearing record for the Superior 38 McDougal v. State, 2011 WL 4921345, *2 (Del.). 12 Court’s sentence. 39 Any claims as to due process violations as to the sentence received is procedurally barred as previously adjudicated and without merit. 50.

2019Feb. 7, 2014) (holding that appellant’s failure to order and provide copy of VOP transcript precluded review of due process and conflict of interest claims); Hearn v. State, 2011 WL 6808013, at *2 (Del.

2018In sentencing a defendant for a VOP, the trial court is authorized to impose any period of incarceration up to 3 Id. (quoting Collins v. State, 897 A.2d 159, 160 (Del. 2006)). 4 Hearn v. State, 2011 WL 6808013, *1 (Del.

2018As the appealing party, Grimm was required to—but did not—request a transcript of the January 2, 2018 VOP hearing for this appeal.2 In the absence of the transcript, the Court cannot review Grimm’s claims regarding the Superior Court judge’s alleged bias or the alleged misconduct of the probation officer at the VOP hearing.3 (6) Finally, this Court’s appellate review of a sentence is extremely limited and generally ends upon a determination that the sentence is within statutory limits.4 Once Grimm committed a VOP, the Superior Court could impose any period of incarceration up to and including

2018As the appealing party, Grimm was required to—but did not—request a transcript of the January 2, 2018 VOP hearing for this appeal.2 In the absence of the transcript, the Court cannot review Grimm’s claims regarding the Superior Court judge’s alleged bias or the alleged misconduct of the probation officer at the VOP hearing.3 (6) Finally, this Court’s appellate review of a sentence is extremely limited and generally ends upon a determination that the sentence is within statutory limits.4 Once Grimm committed a VOP, the Superior Court could impose any period of incarceration up to and including

2014Second, Smith argues that his counsel was ineffective for failing to 5 Dawson v. State, 673 A.2d 1186, 1190 (Del. 1996) (citing Bailey v. State, 588 A.2d 1121, 1124 (Del. 1991)). 6 Schoolfield v. State, 2013 WL 3807471 , at *1 (Del. 2013). 7 Jones v. State, 560 A.2d 1056, 1058 (Del. 1989) (quoting Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 790 (1973)). 3 promptly meet with him for an appropriate period of time to discuss possible defenses for his VOP hearing. (6) Smith’s arguments lack merit.

2014Second, Smith argues that his counsel was ineffective for failing to 5 Dawson v. State, 673 A.2d 1186, 1190 (Del. 1996) (citing Bailey v. State, 588 A.2d 1121, 1124 (Del. 1991)). 6 Schoolfield v. State, 2013 WL 3807471 , at *1 (Del. 2013). 7 Jones v. State, 560 A.2d 1056, 1058 (Del. 1989) (quoting Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 790 (1973)). 3 promptly meet with him for an appropriate period of time to discuss possible defenses for his VOP hearing. (6) Smith’s arguments lack merit.

2020He also contends that the Superior Court erred by entering the August 5, 2019 corrected sentencing order. (7) Guilfoil’s failure to file a timely notice of appeal from the June 28, 2019 VOP proceedings precludes this Court’s review of his claims challenging the underlying VOP finding.6 As noted above, however, the State concedes that the Superior Court erroneously entered the August 5, 2019 order without holding a 5 411 U.S. 778 (1973). 6 See Allen v. State, 2016 WL 152923 (Del.

2014Second, Smith argues that his counsel was ineffective for failing to 5 Dawson v. State, 673 A.2d 1186, 1190 (Del. 1996) (citing Bailey v. State, 588 A.2d 1121, 1124 (Del. 1991)). 6 Schoolfield v. State, 2013 WL 3807471 , at *1 (Del. 2013). 7 Jones v. State, 560 A.2d 1056, 1058 (Del. 1989) (quoting Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 790 (1973)). 3 promptly meet with him for an appropriate period of time to discuss possible defenses for his VOP hearing. (6) Smith’s arguments lack merit.

2025Sept. 3, 2024) (Supreme Court concluded the appeal was moot because defendant had served his sentence and then considered the merits of the appeal). 10 862 A.2d 386 , 2004 WL 2743556, **2-3 (Del.

2025Sept. 3, 2024) (Supreme Court concluded the appeal was moot because defendant had served his sentence and then considered the merits of the appeal). 10 862 A.2d 386 , 2004 WL 2743556, **2-3 (Del.

2015A preponderance of evidence means ‘some competent evidence’ to ‘reasonably satisfy the judge that the conduct of the probationer has not been as good as required by the conditions of probation.’”14 A defendant can be properly adjudicated to have violated his probation by committing a new crime, even if the State concedes that it lacks sufficient evidence to prosecute the probationer and establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he has committed the crime.15 “Furthermore, ‘the rules of evidence applicable to criminal trials are relaxed’ in VOP proceedings, and hearsay evidence is admissible.”16

2015A preponderance of evidence means ‘some competent evidence’ to ‘reasonably satisfy the judge that the conduct of the probationer has not been as good as required by the conditions of probation.’”14 A defendant can be properly adjudicated to have violated his probation by committing a new crime, even if the State concedes that it lacks sufficient evidence to prosecute the probationer and establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he has committed the crime.15 “Furthermore, ‘the rules of evidence applicable to criminal trials are relaxed’ in VOP proceedings, and hearsay evidence is admissible.”16

2024In Machin, the Superior Court discussed the doctrine of collateral estoppel in declining to dismiss a State indictment based on the United States District Court for the District of Delaware’s granting of a motion to suppress in the defendant’s federal criminal case because the Assistant United States Attorney had failed to appear for the suppression hearing. 642 A.2d 1235, 1238-42 (Del.

2022The transcript of the October 21, 2021 VOP hearing reflects that the sentencing judge stated that Schofield was “to have no contact with Carol Schofield, and that will be a zero tolerance provision for DOC to oversee his access to and from the facility as appropriate.”11 The language in the November 9, 2021 order limiting Schofield’s external communications while at 8 Jones v. State, 672 A.2d 554, 555 (Del. 1996). 9 Id. 10 Id. 11 State v. Schofield, Crim.

2022The transcript of the October 21, 2021 VOP hearing reflects that the sentencing judge stated that Schofield was “to have no contact with Carol Schofield, and that will be a zero tolerance provision for DOC to oversee his access to and from the facility as appropriate.”11 The language in the November 9, 2021 order limiting Schofield’s external communications while at 8 Jones v. State, 672 A.2d 554, 555 (Del. 1996). 9 Id. 10 Id. 11 State v. Schofield, Crim.

2022As we recently stated in Purnell v. State, “[w]aiver is the voluntary and intentional relinquishment of a known right.”78 “In the criminal context, it is ‘incumbent upon the State to prove’ waiver, and ‘the courts indulge in every reasonable presumption against waiver.’”79 “Whether a particular right is waivable; whether the defendant must participate personally in the waiver; whether certain procedures are required for waiver; and whether the defendant’s choice must be particularly informed or voluntary, all depend on the right at stake.”80 77 See Brown, 249 A.2d at 272 (concluding that “ther

2022As we recently stated in Purnell v. State, “[w]aiver is the voluntary and intentional relinquishment of a known right.”78 “In the criminal context, it is ‘incumbent upon the State to prove’ waiver, and ‘the courts indulge in every reasonable presumption against waiver.’”79 “Whether a particular right is waivable; whether the defendant must participate personally in the waiver; whether certain procedures are required for waiver; and whether the defendant’s choice must be particularly informed or voluntary, all depend on the right at stake.”80 77 See Brown, 249 A.2d at 272 (concluding that “ther

2022As we recently stated in Purnell v. State, “[w]aiver is the voluntary and intentional relinquishment of a known right.”78 “In the criminal context, it is ‘incumbent upon the State to prove’ waiver, and ‘the courts indulge in every reasonable presumption against waiver.’”79 “Whether a particular right is waivable; whether the defendant must participate personally in the waiver; whether certain procedures are required for waiver; and whether the defendant’s choice must be particularly informed or voluntary, all depend on the right at stake.”80 77 See Brown, 249 A.2d at 272 (concluding that “ther

2020Jan. 7, 2014) (citing Helman v. State, 784 A.2d 1058, 1076-77 (Del. 2001)). 9 Id. (citing Anderson v. State, 2006 WL 3931460 (Del.

2020Jan. 7, 2014) (citing Helman v. State, 784 A.2d 1058, 1076-77 (Del. 2001)). 9 Id. (citing Anderson v. State, 2006 WL 3931460 (Del.