Case Title: Piper v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 689, 2009

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2010-06-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ROBERT J. PIPER, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 689, 2009 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr. ID 0412018249 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: April 20, 2010 
Decided: 
June 28, 2010 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 28th day of June 2010, upon consideration of the appellant's 
Supreme Court Rule 26(c) brief, his attorney's motion to withdraw, and the 
State's response thereto, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The Superior Court found the defendant-appellant, Robert Piper 
(Piper), guilty of his third violation of probation (VOP).  The Superior Court 
sentenced Piper to one year at Level V incarceration, with credit for ten days 
served, suspended immediately for ten months at the Level IV VOP Center, 
to be suspended upon successful completion of Level IV.  He was 
discharged as unimproved from any further probation.  This is Piper’s appeal 
from that sentence. 
 
2 
(2) 
Piper's counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Piper's counsel asserts that, based upon a 
complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably 
appealable issues.  By letter, Piper's attorney informed him of the provisions 
of Rule 26(c) and provided Piper with a copy of the motion to withdraw and 
the accompanying brief.  Piper also was informed of his right to supplement 
his attorney's presentation.  Piper has raised two issues for this Court's 
consideration.  The State has responded to Piper’s issues, as well as to the 
position taken by Piper's counsel, and has moved to affirm the Superior 
Court's judgment. 
(3) 
The standard and scope of review applicable to the 
consideration of a motion to withdraw and an accompanying brief under 
Rule 26(c) is twofold:  (a) this Court must be satisfied that defense counsel 
has made a conscientious examination of the record and the law for arguable 
claims; and (b) this Court must conduct its own review of the record and 
determine whether the appeal is so totally devoid of at least arguably 
appealable issues that it can be decided without an adversary presentation.1 
                                                 
1 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 
U.S. 429, 442 (1988); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). 
 
 
3 
(4) 
Piper appears to claim that it was error for him to appear at the 
VOP hearing before any judge other than his original sentencing judge.  
Piper also contends that the sentencing judge was unprofessional when he 
threatened Piper by saying he was going to punish him.  Neither claim has 
any merit. 
(5) 
A probationer is entitled to a prompt hearing before a judge of 
the Superior Court on a VOP charge.2  A probationer is not entitled, 
however, “to a hearing before a specific judge.”3  We, therefore, reject 
Piper’s first claim on appeal. 
(6) 
Piper next contends that the Superior Court judge was 
unprofessional because he “threatened” Piper.  Piper does not point to any 
specific comments, however, which he claims were threatening.  Having 
reviewed the transcript of the VOP hearing, we find nothing even arguably 
inappropriate or unprofessional in the judge’s colloquy.  The judge merely 
reviewed the VOP allegations and Piper’s prior criminal history before 
pronouncing his sentence.  Accordingly, we reject Piper’s second argument 
as being unsupported by the record. 
                                                 
2 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 32.1(a). 
3 Mayfield v. State, 2003 WL 1711946 (Del. Mar. 28, 2003). 
 
4 
(7) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Piper’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Piper's counsel has made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly 
determined that Piper could not raise a meritorious claim in this appeal. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State's motion to 
affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.  
The motion to withdraw is moot. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice