Case Title: Pipkin v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 245, 2004

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2004-10-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
TYRONE J. PIPKIN,                      
           
Defendant Below- 
Appellant,   
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
     
 
 
     
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
   No. 245, 2004 
 
   Court Below---Superior Court 
   of the State of Delaware, 
   in and for New Castle County  
   Cr. ID No. 0109010953 
                      
 
Submitted: August 27, 2004   
   Decided: October 26, 2004    
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices  
 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 26th day of October 2004, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal 
and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Tyrone J. Pipkin, filed an appeal from the 
Superior Court’s May 11, 2004 order denying his motion for sentence modification 
pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 35.  We find no merit to the appeal.  
Accordingly, we affirm. 
 
(2) 
In February 2002, Pipkin pleaded guilty to one count of Burglary in 
the Third Degree.  He was sentenced to 3 years incarceration at Level V to be 
suspended after 4 months for 32 months of Level IV work release, in turn to be 
suspended after 6 months for 26 months at Level III supervision.   
 
 
-2-
 
(3) 
In June 2002, Pipkin was found by the Superior Court to have 
committed a violation of probation (“VOP”) in connection with his Level IV 
probation.  His probation was revoked and he was sentenced to 32 months of Level 
V incarceration, to be suspended for 2 months at the Level IV VOP Center, 
followed by 30 months of Level III supervision. 
 
(4) 
In January 2004, Pipkin again was found to have committed a VOP.  
His probation was revoked and he was sentenced to 32 months of Level V 
incarceration, to be suspended for the Level IV Crest Program, in turn to be 
suspended, upon successful completion of the program, for the balance of the 
sentence to be served at Level III Aftercare.  Pipkin did not appeal either the 
finding of a VOP or the VOP sentence.   
 
(5) 
In this appeal from the Superior Court’s denial of his Rule 35 motion, 
Pipkin claims that his due process rights were violated at his January 2004 VOP 
hearing.  As grounds for this claim, Pipkin alleges that: a) the judge who imposed 
his VOP sentence did not consider all the evidence; b) he was not given the 
opportunity to present evidence in his own behalf; c) the judge failed to appoint an 
attorney to represent him; d) his VOP sentence was not imposed by the original 
sentencing judge; and e) the VOP was found solely on the basis of hearsay. 
 
 
-3-
 
(6) 
Rather than filing a direct appeal to this Court from the finding of a 
VOP, Pipkin instead chose to file a motion for sentence modification pursuant to 
Rule 35.  However, Pipkin may not use the instant appeal from the Superior 
Court’s denial of his Rule 35 motion to collaterally attack the merits of his VOP 
conviction.1  We would be unable to review the merits of Pipkin’s due process 
claim in any case, since Pipkin has failed to include a copy of the relevant pages of 
the VOP hearing transcript in support of his claims.2    
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice  
 
                                                 
1 Fisher v. State, Del. Supr., No. 603, 2002, Walsh, J. (Mar. 19, 2003).  
2 Tricoche v. State, 525 A.2d 151, 154 (Del. 1987).