Case Title: Davis v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 115, 2020

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2021-01-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
LENNON K. DAVIS, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§      No. 115, 2020 
§ 
§      Court Below—Superior Court 
§      of the State of Delaware 
§   
§      Cr. ID Nos. 1802018089 (N) 
§                          1809012724 (N) 
§                          1809012691 (N) 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:   December 15, 2020 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
January 21, 2021 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; TRAYNOR and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, 
Justices. 
 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
Upon consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the appellee’s motion to 
affirm, and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Lennon K. Davis, filed this appeal from his sentencing 
for a violation of probation (“VOP”).  The State has moved to affirm the judgment 
below on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Davis’s opening brief and that 
his appeal is without merit.  We agree and affirm. 
(2) 
On June 24, 2019, Davis pled guilty to theft of $1500 or more, third-
degree burglary, resisting arrest, and failing to report a collision.  The Superior Court 
sentenced him as follows:  for third-degree burglary, to three years of imprisonment 
2 
 
with credit for 274 days previously served, suspended for one year of Level III 
probation; for theft over $1500, to two years of imprisonment, suspended for one 
year of Level III probation; for resisting arrest, to one year of imprisonment, 
suspended for one year of Level III probation; and for failing to report a collision, to 
a $25 fine. 
(3) 
On December 10, 2019, a probation officer filed a violation of 
probation (“VOP”) report.  Secured bail was posted, and Davis was released on 
January 29, 2020.  On February 5, 2020, another probation officer filed a VOP 
report, and Davis was returned to custody.   
(4) 
At a VOP hearing on February 13, 2020, Davis’s counsel stated that 
Davis admitted that he was in violation of probation.  The Superior Court found 
Davis in violation and imposed the following VOP sentence:  for the third-degree 
burglary conviction, to two years of imprisonment, suspended for eighteen months 
of Level IV work release, suspended after six months for twelve months of Level III 
probation; for the resisting arrest conviction, to one year of imprisonment, suspended 
for twelve months of Level III probation; and for the theft conviction, to two years 
of imprisonment, suspended for twelve months of Level III probation.  
(5) 
Davis has appealed from his VOP sentence.  On appeal, he argues that 
(i) he was improperly charged with offensive touching, which charge was one of the 
grounds on which he was alleged to be in violation of probation; (ii) he should not 
3 
 
have been charged with a VOP based on his admitted contact with a former 
girlfriend, because he was not aware that he was subject to a no-contact order; (iii) 
his bail was increased without his knowledge; (iv) the Department of Correction did 
not deliver his mail; and (v) the Superior Court judge treated him unfairly at his VOP 
hearing. 
(6) 
After careful consideration, we find no merit to Davis’s appeal.  Davis 
appeared at the VOP hearing represented by counsel.  He admitted that he had 
violated probation, based on conduct other than the offensive touching charge, and 
the Superior Court found him in violation based on that admission.  Davis’s 
admission to violating probation constitutes sufficient evidence to sustain the 
Superior Court’s finding of a VOP.1   
(7) 
Davis did not raise at the VOP hearing the issues concerning the bail 
amount or the delivery of mail and has therefore waived appellate review of those 
issues absent plain error.2  Davis has not demonstrated how his arguments regarding 
bail and mail delivery would warrant reversal of the adjudication of an admitted 
probation violation or the sentence imposed for that violation, and we therefore find 
no plain error. 
 
1 E.g., Cook v. State, 2019 WL 949372 (Del. Feb. 25, 2019); Lougheed v. State, 2016 WL 
5899238 (Del. Oct. 10, 2016). 
2 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 8; Rivera v. State, 2014 WL 2093709, at *2 (Del. May 15, 2014).  
4 
 
(8) 
Finally, we have reviewed the transcript of the VOP hearing and find 
no evidence that the Superior Court judge treated Davis unfairly.  Indeed, the judge 
imposed a less stringent VOP sentence than was recommended by the probation 
officer. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Affirm is 
GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Tamika R. Montgomery-Reeves 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice