Case Title: Taylor v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 267, 2012, 312, 2012

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2013-04-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
BYRON D. TAYLOR,  
 
§  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
Nos. 267 & 312, 2012 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
(CONSOLIDATED) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
Court Below–Superior Court of 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
the State of Delaware in and for 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
Sussex County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
Cr. ID Nos. 1012017017 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
 
 
1105022284   
 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Submitted:  January 24, 2013 
Decided:  April 10, 2013 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices.  
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 10th day of April 2013, upon consideration of the opening brief 
filed by the appellant and the motion to affirm filed by the appellee, it 
appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
At a violation of probation (“VOP”) hearing held on April 17, 
2012, the appellant, Byron D. Taylor, admitted that he had violated his 
probation.  Based on that admission, the Superior Court revoked Taylor’s 
probation and sentenced him.  This appeal followed. 
(2) 
It is manifest on the face of Taylor’s opening brief that this 
appeal is without merit.  On appeal, Taylor does not challenge his VOP 
conviction and/or sentencing on April 17, 2012.  Instead, Taylor challenges 
2 
 
the validity of guilty pleas that he entered into on May 16, 20111 and 
November 23, 2011.2  Taylor’s claims, arising from his prior guilty pleas on 
May 16, 2011 and November 23, 2011, are not justiciable in this appeal 
from his April 17, 2012 VOP conviction and sentencing.3 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the appellee’s motion to 
affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
                                          
 
1 State v. Taylor, Del. Super., Cr. ID No. 1012017017. 
2 State v. Taylor, Del. Super., Cr. ID No. 1105022284. 
3See, e.g., Sewell v. State, 2003 WL 22839962 (Del. Supr.) (concluding that right to 
counsel claim arising from prior, appealable 2001 VOP adjudication was not justiciable 
in subsequent 2003 appeal from denial of sentence modification motion); Strawley v. 
State, 2002 WL 86687 (Del. Supr.) (concluding that challenge arising from prior, 
appealable VOP proceeding was untimely in subsequent appeal from denial of sentence 
correction motion (citing Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778 (Del. 1989))).