Case Title: Miller v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 673, 2011

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2012-07-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
MALIK MILLER, 
 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
          Plaintiff Below, 
         Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 673, 2011 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, in and 
§  for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 0810020682 
§   
§ 
 
 
Submitted: May 25, 2012 
 
Decided: 
July 3, 2012 
 
Before HOLLAND, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 3rd day of July 2012, upon consideration of the appellant’s opening 
brief, the State’s amended motion to affirm, and the record below, it appears to the 
Court that: 
 
(1) The defendant-appellant, Malik Miller, filed this appeal from the 
Superior Court’s sentence for a violation of probation (VOP).  The State of 
Delaware has filed a motion to affirm the judgment below on the ground that it is 
manifest on the face of Miller’s opening brief that his appeal is without merit.  We 
agree and affirm. 
 
(2) The record reflects that Miller pled guilty in June 2009 to one count of 
Assault in the First Degree.  The Superior Court sentenced Miller to a total period 
 
2
of twenty-five years at Level V incarceration to be suspended after serving three 
years for twenty-two years at Level IV Work Release, to be suspended after 
serving eight months at Work Release for twenty-one years and four months at 
Level IV Home Confinement, to be suspended after serving six months at Home 
Confinement for eighteen months at Level III probation.  Miller did not appeal 
from that sentence.  In November 2011, Miller was charged with violating 
probation after he was involved in a fight at the Level IV Plummer Center.  Miller 
admitted the violation, and the Superior Court sentenced him to six months at 
Level V incarceration or VOP Center and, upon completion, to restart the Level IV 
portion of his original sentence.  Miller now appeals. 
 
(2) Miller raises four points in his opening brief on appeal.  First, he 
contends that the Superior Court judge had a closed mind because Miller’s original 
conviction was for a violent offense.  Second, Miller asserts that facts exist to 
justify his VOP.  Third, Miller suggests that there was no evidence presented to 
justify the VOP finding.  Finally, he contends that the administrative warrant was 
defective. 
 
(3) We find no merit to Miller’s appeal.  In a VOP hearing, the State is only 
required to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated 
the terms of his probation.1  A preponderance of evidence means “some competent 
                                                 
1 Kurzmann v. State, 903 A.2d 702, 716 (Del. 2006). 
 
3
evidence” to “reasonably satisfy the judge that the conduct of the probationer has 
not been as good as required by the conditions of probation.”2  The transcript of the 
VOP hearing in this case reflects that Miller admitted to the violation.  That 
admission is sufficient evidence to justify the Superior Court’s VOP finding.   
 
(4) Once the Superior Court found Miller in violation of the terms of his 
probation, it was authorized to require Miller to serve in prison the twenty-years 
that were suspended in the original sentencing order or any lesser sentence.3  The 
Superior Court only imposed a six-month prison sentence for Miller’s VOP.  
Under these circumstances, we find nothing in the record to support Miller’s 
suggestion that the Superior Court judge sentenced him with a closed mind. 
 
 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
         Justice 
                                                 
2 Id. (quoting Collins v. State, 897 A.2d 159, 160 (Del. 2006)). 
3 Gamble v. State, 728 A.2d 1171, 1172 (Del. 1999).