Case Title: Baker v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 477, 2022

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2023-05-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
WILLIAM D. BAKER, 
 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 477, 2022 
§ 
§  Court Below–Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID No. 2107008312 (S) 
§   
§   
§                                                                                  
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: March 8, 2023 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
May 4, 2023 
 
 
 
 
Corrected:  May 16, 2023 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
After consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the State’s motion to 
affirm, and the record on appeal, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, William D. Baker, appeals the Superior Court’s order 
sentencing him for a violation of probation (“VOP”).  The State has filed a motion 
to affirm the judgment below on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Baker’s 
opening brief that his appeal is without merit.  We agree and affirm. 
(2) 
On August 8, 2022, Baker pleaded guilty to two counts of misdemeanor 
theft and one count of third-degree forgery.  In accordance with the plea agreement, 
the Superior Court immediately sentenced Baker for each conviction to one year of 
incarceration, suspended for one year of Level III probation. 
2 
 
(3) 
On October 5, 2022, Baker’s probation officer filed an administrative 
warrant alleging that Baker had violated the terms of his probation because he had 
(i) been charged with new felony offenses in Kent County, (ii) failed to report to 
probation, (iii) failed to report his change of address, and (iv) not complied with the 
special conditions of the court’s sentence.  Following a hearing on December 2, 
2022, the Superior Court found that Baker had violated the terms of his probation.  
The Superior Court re-sentenced Baker as follows: (i) for misdemeanor theft, to one 
year of incarceration, suspended after his successful completion of a Level IV 
program (to be determined by the Department of Correction) for one year of Level 
III probation; (ii) for misdemeanor theft, to seven months of incarceration (taking 
into account all time previously served), suspended for one year of Level III 
probation; and (iii) for third-degree forgery, to one year of incarceration, suspended 
for one year of Level III probation.  This appeal followed. 
(4) 
In his opening brief on appeal, Baker does not dispute that he violated 
the terms of his probation.  Instead, Baker argues that the Superior Court “could 
have” consolidated his VOP with another he faced in the Court of Common Pleas 
because they were based on the same violation—the criminal charges for which he 
was arrested in Kent County.  Baker also claims that he was not given credit for the 
time he served awaiting the disposition of these new criminal charges and that he 
has medical needs that cannot be met by the DOC. Baker’s claims are unavailing.  
3 
 
(5) 
First, although the Superior Court has the authority to consolidate 
VOPs in separate cases,1 it is not required to do so.  Second, to the extent that Baker 
claims he was not given credit for time served in this case, the record does not 
support his conclusory claim.  Finally, the DOC may apply for the modification of 
Baker’s sentence under 11 Del. C. § 4217 if it determines that it is unable to meet 
his medical needs. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to affirm 
be GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court be AFFIRMED. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Gary F. Traynor 
Justice  
 
 
1 11 Del. C. § 4333(h).