Case Title: Berry v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 274, 2023

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2024-05-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
SHAHEED BERRY, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 274, 2023 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§ 
§  Cr. ID Nos. 2110002587,  
§  2110001638, 2101004934 (K) 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:  April 5, 2024 
 
 
 
 
Decided:     May 14, 2024 
 
Before VALIHURA, TRAYNOR, and LEGROW, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 
 
Upon consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal, it appears 
to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Shaheed Berry, filed this appeal from a Superior Court 
order sentencing him for a violation of probation (“VOP”).  For the reasons set forth 
below, we affirm the Superior Court’s judgment. 
(2) 
In March 2022, Berry pleaded guilty to drug dealing and possession of 
firearm by a person prohibited (“PFBPP”) in Criminal ID No. 2101004934.  The 
Superior Court sentenced Berry as follows:  
• for drug dealing, effective October 6, 2021, seven years, six 
months and twenty-five days of Level V incarceration, 
suspended immediately for decreasing levels of supervision; and  
 
2 
 
• for PFBPP, eight years of Level V incarceration, suspended for 
eighteen months of Level III probation. 
 
The sentencing order also provided for Berry to undergo substance abuse and mental 
health evaluations, follow any treatment recommendations, and be monitored by the 
Treatment Access Center (“TASC”). 
(3) 
In June 2022, Berry pleaded guilty to drug dealing in Criminal ID No. 
2110001638 and drug dealing in Criminal ID No. 2110002587.  The Superior Court 
sentenced Berry as follows: 
• for drug dealing in Criminal ID No. 2110001638, eight years of 
Level V incarceration, suspended for one year of Level IV 
Department of Correction (“DOC”) discretion, followed by 
eighteen months of Level III probation; 
 
• for drug dealing in Criminal ID No. 2110002587, eight years of 
Level V incarceration, suspended for eighteen months of Level 
III probation.   
 
(4) 
On April 19, 2023, an administrative warrant was filed for Berry’s 
VOP.  The VOP report alleged that Berry had not reported to TASC for appointments 
on April 6, 2023 and April 13, 2023 and had been discharged from an aftercare 
program for non-compliance.  After a hearing on May 19, 2023, the Superior Court 
found that Berry had violated his probation and sentenced him as follows: 
• for drug dealing in Criminal ID No. 2101004934, six years and 
five months of Level V incarceration, suspended for eighteen 
months of Level III probation; 
 
3 
 
• for PFBPP in Criminal ID No. 2101004934, eight years of Level 
V incarceration, suspended for eighteen months of Level III 
probation; 
 
• for drug dealing in Criminal ID No. 2110001638, seven years 
and six months of Level V incarceration, suspended for eighteen 
months of Level III probation;  
 
• for drug dealing in Criminal ID No. 2110002587, eight years of 
Level V incarceration, suspended for eighteen months of Level 
III probation. 
 
The VOP sentencing order reimposed all previous terms and conditions.   
(5) 
On June 28, 2023, an administrative warrant was filed for Berry’s VOP.  
The VOP report alleged that Berry had not reported to TASC for appointments  on 
May 17, 2023, May 24, 2023, May 31, 2023, June 7, 2023, June 14, 2023, and June 
21, 2023.  In a later memorandum, TASC advised the Superior Court that Berry had 
a verbal altercation with staff on July 11, 2023 and requested elimination of the 
TASC monitoring requirement in Berry’s sentence. 
(6) 
After a hearing on July 21, 2023, the Superior Court found that Berry 
had violated his probation and sentenced him as follows: 
• for drug dealing in Criminal ID No. 2101004934, six years and 
four months of Level V incarceration, suspended after one year 
of Level V incarceration to be served under 11 Del. C. § 4204(k) 
for decreasing levels of supervision; 
 
• for PFBPP in Criminal ID No. 2101004934, eight years of Level 
V incarceration, suspended for one year of Level III GPS; 
 
4 
 
• for drug dealing in Criminal ID No. 2110001638, seven years 
and six months of Level V incarceration, suspended for one year 
of Level III GPS; 
 
• for drug dealing in Criminal ID No. 2110002587, eight years of 
Level V incarceration, suspended for one year of Level III GPS. 
 
This appeal followed. 
(7) 
Berry’s arguments on appeal may be summarized as follows: (i) his 
counsel did not have sufficient time to gather evidence and statements from TASC 
witnesses establishing that he went to TASC on the days he allegedly failed to 
appear; (ii) the Superior Court did not receive a probation officer’s statement that 
Berry had complied with his probation; and (iii) his urine screens were clean, he did 
not need drug rehabilitation, and it was difficult for him to report to TASC in Kent 
County at the required times while he was living in Sussex County and working two 
jobs.   
(8) 
To the extent Berry is contending that the Superior Court erred in 
finding he violated his probation, this contention is without merit.  In a VOP hearing, 
unlike a criminal trial, the State is only required to prove by a preponderance of the 
evidence that the defendant violated the terms of probation.1   A preponderance of 
the evidence means “some competent evidence” to prove the violation asserted.2   At 
 
1 Kurzmann v. State, 903 A.2d 702, 716 (Del. 2006). 
2 Brown v. State, 249 A.2d 269, 272 (Del. 1968). 
5 
 
the VOP hearing,3 Berry initially denied the allegations in the VOP report and 
TASC’s memorandum.  After conferring with his counsel, Berry admitted that he 
violated his probation by failing to report to TASC as directed and behaved 
inappropriately during his last unscheduled visit to TASC.  Berry did not ask for 
additional time to gather evidence that he had reported to TASC as directed.  Instead, 
he confirmed to the Superior Court that he did not wish to contest the VOP 
allegations and asked to be heard regarding the VOP sentence.  In light of Berry’s 
admissions, there was sufficient competent evidence for the Superior Court to find 
Berry in violation and to revoke his probation.4   
(9) 
While asking the Superior Court for a VOP sentence that did not 
include jail time, Berry emphasized that his urine screens were clean and the 
challenges he faced in reporting to TASC as directed.  To the extent he is contending 
that the Superior Court erred in sentencing him, this claim is also without merit.  This 
Court’s appellate review of a sentence is extremely limited and generally ends upon 
a determination that the sentence is within statutory limits.5  When the sentence falls 
within the statutory limits, “we consider only whether it is based on factual 
 
3 The transcript of the VOP hearing reflects that Berry fled the courthouse before the hearing 
commenced, was caught by his probation officer and Capitol Police, and was brought back to the 
courthouse for the hearing.   
4 Collins v. State, 897 A.2d 159, 161 (Del. 2006). 
5 Kurzmann v. State, 903 A.2d at 714. 
6 
 
predicates which are false, impermissible, or lack minimal reliability, judicial 
vindictiveness or bias, or a closed mind.”6  
(10) Once Berry committed a VOP, the Superior Court could impose any 
period of incarceration up to and including the balance of the Level V time remaining 
on his sentence.7  The Level V time imposed for Berry’s VOP did not exceed the 
Level V time remaining on his sentences.  Nor has Berry identified anything to 
suggest that the VOP sentence was based on factual predicates that are false, 
impermissible, or lack minimal reliability, judicial vindictiveness or bias, or a closed 
mind.  The Superior Court’s judgment must be affirmed. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Gary F. Traynor 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
 
 
6 Id. 
7 11 Del. C. § 4334(c); Pavulak v. State, 880 A.2d 1044, 1046 (Del. 2005).