Case Title: Hall v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 314, 2001

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2001-10-31T00:00:00Z

Document:
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
JERMAINE HALL,
'
'
No.  314, 2001
Defendant Below,
'
Appellant,
'
Court BelowBSuperior Court
'
of the State of Delaware, in
v.
'
and for Sussex County in Cr.
'
A.  No.  VS99-12-0648-01.
STATE OF DELAWARE,
'
'
Plaintiff Below,
'
Appellee.
'
Def.  ID No.  9912011776
Submitted: October 19, 2001
Decided:
October 31, 2001
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, BERGER and STEELE, Justices.
O R D E R
This 31st day of October 2001, upon consideration of the appellant=s
opening brief and the appellee=s motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme Court
Rule 25(a), it appears to the Court that:
(1)
In January 2000, Jermaine Hall pled guilty to the charge of
Maintaining a Dwelling for Keeping Controlled Substances.  By modified
sentencing order issued on March 4, 2000, Hall was sentenced to three years
at Level V, suspended for three years at Level III. 
2
(2)
On May 30, 2001, the Superior Court issued a notice directing
Hall to appear for a violation of probation (AVOP@) hearing on June 8, 2001.
 The Superior Court=s notice provided Hall with a copy of the VOP report and
advised Hall that he should contact an attorney if he desired to be represented
by counsel at the hearing. 
(3)
Hall appeared pro se at the June 8 hearing.  He was adjudged
guilty of VOP and was sentenced to three years at Level V, suspended after
completion of the Key and Crest Programs. This appeal followed.
(4)
On appeal, Hall alleges that his due process rights were violated
at the VOP hearing when:  (i) he was not provided with the appointment of
counsel; (ii) he was prevented from speaking at the VOP hearing prior to the
imposition of sentence; and (iii) he was sentenced without his probation
officer being present.  Hall did not raise these issues at his VOP hearing. 
Accordingly, we review the claims for plain error.1 
(5)
Hall contends that he was entitled to appointed counsel at the
VOP hearing.  Hall=s claim is without merit.  There is no right to the
appointment of counsel at a VOP hearing.2  A request for the appointment of
                                                 
1Supr.  Ct.  R.  8; Wainwright v.  State, Del.  Supr., 504 A.2d 1096, 1100 (1986).
2Jones v.  State, Del.  Supr., 560 A.2d 1056, 1057 (1989).
3
counsel is generally addressed to the discretion of the trial court.3  The VOP
proceeding in this case did not present any substantial or complex issues that
would have entitled Hall to the appointment of counsel.4  The Superior Court
was not obligated to appoint counsel to represent Hall.
(6)
Hall complains that he was prevented from speaking before the
imposition of sentence.  Hall=s claim is belied by the record.  It appears from
the hearing transcript that Hall was given ample opportunity to speak at the
VOP hearing.5
(7)
Hall alleges that he was sentenced without his probation officer
being present.  It appears from the record that a probation officer was present
at, and participated in, the VOP hearing.  Hall was convicted on the basis of
his probation officer=s report and Hall=s own admissions,6 which corroborated
much of the report and provided an adequate basis for finding Hall guilty of
VOP.  The evidence in a VOP hearing need only be Asuch as to reasonably
                                                 
3Id.
4Id.
5See VOP Hr=g Tr., June 8, 2001.
6The report charged, and Hall admitted, that he had absconded from probation and
tested positive for drugs.
4
satisfy the judge that the conduct of the probationer has not been as good as
required by the conditions of probation.@7
(8)
In this case, it is manifest on the face of Hall=s opening brief that
the appeal is without merit.  The issues raised are clearly controlled by settled
Delaware law, and to the extent the issues on appeal implicate the exercise of
judicial discretion, there was no abuse of discretion.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State=s motion to
affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Myron T. Steele___________________
Justice
                                                 
7Brown v.  State, Del.  Supr., 249 A.2d 269, 272 (1968) (quoting Manning v. 
United States, 5th Cir., 161 F.2d 827, 829 (1947)).