Case Title: Stinson v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 226, 2023

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2023-12-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JULIUS A. STINSON, 
 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 226, 2023 
§ 
§  Court Below–Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID No. 1808017048 (N) 
§                   
§   
§                                                                      
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: September 26, 2023 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
December 7, 2023 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and GRIFFITHS, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
After consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the appellee’s motion to 
affirm, and the Superior Court record, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Julius A. Stinson, 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 Stinson’s 
opening brief that his appeal is without merit.  We agree and affirm. 
(2) 
In March 2019, Stinson pleaded guilty to one count of second-degree 
assault and one count of possession of a deadly weapon during the commission of a 
felony (“PDWDCF”).  Following a presentence investigation, the Superior Court 
sentenced Stinson as follows: for second-degree assault, to eight years of 
2 
 
incarceration, suspended after three years followed by decreasing levels of 
supervision; and for PDWDCF, to twenty-five years of incarceration, suspended 
after two years for eighteen months of Level III probation.  Stinson did not appeal 
his convictions or sentence. 
(3) 
In May 2023, Stinson’s probation officer filed a VOP report alleging 
that Stinson had violated the terms of his probation while he was housed at the 
Sussex County Work Release Center (“Work Release”).  Specifically, the VOP 
report claimed that Stinson had committed program violations when he: (i) made 
disrespectful comments about Work Release staff while on a phone call, (ii) 
possessed contraband, and (iii) failed to obey orders issued by Work Release staff.  
At the June 7, 2023 VOP hearing, Stinson admitted to violating the terms of his 
probation by possessing contraband.  The Superior Court re-sentenced Stinson for 
PDWDCF to twenty-three years of incarceration, suspended after one year for 
eighteen months of Level III probation.1  This appeal followed. 
(4) 
Probation is an “act of grace,” and the Superior Court has broad 
discretion when deciding whether to revoke a defendant’s probation.2  Specifically, 
the Superior Court need only be satisfied that “the conduct of the probationer has 
 
1 As to Stinson’s assault conviction, the Superior Court discharged him from probation as 
unimproved. 
2 Kurzmann v. State, 903 A.2d 702, 716 (Del. 2006). 
3 
 
not been as good as required by the conditions of probation.”3  Once the Superior 
Court determines that a defendant has violated the terms of his probation, the 
Superior Court may impose any period of incarceration up to and including the 
balance of Level V time remaining on the original sentence.4 
(5) 
In his opening brief on appeal, Stinson arguments may be fairly 
summarized as follows: (i) he had a constitutionally protected right to complain 
about Work Release staff to his family; (ii) he had a constitutional right to finish 
praying before following a staff member’s directions; (iii) his possession of 
contraband was not a program violation; and (iv) his VOP counsel was ineffective.  
Stinson’s claims are unavailing. 
(6) 
Stinson’s first two arguments lack merit because it is clear from the 
VOP hearing transcript that the Superior Court found that Stinson had violated the 
terms of his probation on the basis of his admission that he had possessed 
contraband—that is, the Superior Court did not find that Stinson violated the terms 
of his probation by speaking negatively about Work Release staff or by failing to 
obey orders issued by them.  Stinson’s claims regarding those alleged violations are 
therefore irrelevant to this appeal.   
 
3 Id. (citation omitted). 
4 11 Del. C. § 4334(c); Pavulak v. State, 880 A.2d 1044, 1046 (Del. 2005). 
4 
 
(7) 
Stinson next argues that his possession of contraband was not a Work 
Release program violation because he surrendered the contraband—which he claims 
that he found on Work Release grounds—and did not possess it for his own personal 
enjoyment.  Stinson is mistaken.  In his opening brief, Stinson states that he turned 
in the items to Work Release staff because he “thought this was the only way to get 
back before his sentencing judge.”5  Contrary to Stinson’s position, his motivation 
for possession of contraband does not negate the fact that he possessed the 
contraband in violation of Work Release rules.  The Superior Court therefore did not 
abuse its discretion when it relied on Stinson’s admission to possession of 
contraband to find that he had violated the terms of his probation. 
(8)  
Finally, this Court generally does not consider ineffective-assistance-
of-counsel claims for the first time on direct appeal, and we decline to do so here.6 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to affirm 
is GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
        Chief Justice 
 
5 Opening Br. at 9. 
6 See Desmond v. State, 654 A.2d 821, 829 (Del. 1994).