Case Title: Robinson v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 50, 2014

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2014-10-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
OMAR L. ROBINSON, 
 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 50, 2014 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 1202022095 
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: September 2, 2014 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: October 13, 2014 
 
Before HOLLAND, RIDGELY, and VALIHURA, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 13th day of October 2014, upon consideration of the appellant’s opening 
brief and the State’s motion to affirm, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Omar Robinson, filed this appeal from the 
Superior Court’s order sentencing him for his second violation of probation (VOP).  
The State of Delaware has filed a motion to affirm the judgment below on the 
ground that it is manifest on the face of Robinson’s opening brief that his appeal is 
without merit.  We agree and affirm. 
 
(2) 
The record reflects that Robinson pled guilty in March 2012 to one 
count of Drug Dealing.  The Superior Court immediately sentenced him to a total 
period of five years at Level V incarceration to be suspended immediately for 
 
2
eighteen months at Level III probation.  On December 26, 2012, the Superior 
Court found that Robinson had violated his probation and sentenced him again to 
five years at Level V incarceration to be suspended for eighteen months at Level 
III probation.   
 
(3) 
On March 13, 2013, Robinson was charged with his second VOP, 
among other reasons, because he had been arrested on new criminal charges.  The 
Superior Court continued the VOP hearing and thereafter held multiple re-entry 
conferences to see if Robinson would comply with the terms of his probation.  On 
November 27, 2013, an administrative warrant was issued because of Robinson’s 
continued disruptive and non-compliant behavior, which led to his second 
expulsion from his GED classes.  On January 10, 2014, the Superior Court found 
Robinson guilty of his second VOP for committing a new criminal offense and for 
failing to comply with the conditions of his supervision.  The Superior Court 
sentenced him to three years at Level V incarceration, to be suspended after 
serving thirty months for six months at Level IV Halfway House.  Robinson 
appeals that judgment. 
 
(4) 
In his opening brief on appeal, Robinson does not contest that he 
violated his probation.  Nonetheless, he argues that his VOP sentence was 
excessive for a technical violation and that the sentencing judge had a closed mind.  
Robinson also asserts that due to his learning disabilities, he struggles in a 
 
3
structured classroom setting and that the Superior Court had recommended that he 
undergo a mental health evaluation, which never occurred. 
 
(5) 
After careful consideration, we find no merit to Robinson’s appeal.  In 
a VOP hearing, the State is only required to prove by a preponderance of the 
evidence that the defendant violated the terms of his probation.1  A preponderance 
of evidence means “some competent evidence” to “reasonably satisfy the judge 
that the conduct of the probationer has not been as good as required by the 
conditions of probation.”2  The transcript of the VOP hearing in this case reflects 
that Robinson pled guilty to a new criminal charge and was expelled from his GED 
classes (for the second time) for disruptive behavior.  The evidence was sufficient 
to support the Superior Court’s finding of a violation.3   
 
(6) 
Once the Superior Court found Robinson in violation of the terms of 
his probation, it was authorized to require Robinson to serve the entire length of his 
suspended prison term in jail.4  Thus, the Superior Court, as a matter of law, could 
have sentenced Robinson to serve in prison the entire five years remaining on his 
original sentence.  The Superior Court, however, only imposed a thirty-month 
                                                 
1 Kurzmann v. State, 903 A.2d 702, 716 (Del. 2006). 
2 Id. (quoting Collins v. State, 897 A.2d 159, 160 (Del. 2006)). 
3 Jenkins v. State, 8 A.3d 1147, 1154 (Del. 2010). 
4 Gamble v. State, 728 A.2d 1171, 1172 (Del. 1999). 
 
4
prison term for Robinson’s second VOP.5  Under the circumstances, we find 
nothing in the record to support Robinson’s suggestion that the Superior Court 
judge sentenced him with a closed mind. 
 
 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                                 
5 See Jenkins v. State, 8 A.3d at 1155.