Case Title: Sewell v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 635, 2001

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2002-04-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
JEREMIAH L. SEWELL,
'
'
No. 635, 2001
Defendant Below,
'
Appellant,
'
Court Below--Superior Court
'
of the State of Delaware, in
v.
'
and for Sussex County in
'
VS98-02-0509-05 & VS98-09-
STATE OF DELAWARE,
'
0166-03.
'
Plaintiff Below,
'
Def.  ID No.  9801013800
Appellee.
'
   9808007468
Submitted: March 13, 2002
Decided:
April 17, 2002
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and HOLLAND, Justices.
O R D E R
This 17th day of April 2002, 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 May 1998, the appellant, Jeremiah  L. Sewell, pled  guilty  to
a charge of Riot and was sentenced to three years at Level V imprisonment,
suspended for  one year at Level III probation, followed by one year at Level
2
II probation.  In February 1999, Sewell pled guilty to a charge of Burglary in
the Second Degree and was sentenced to three years at Level V imprisonment,
suspended upon successful completion of Boot Camp for probation.  Sewell
was found to have violated his Riot probation on four occasions:  March 25,
1999, June 25, 1999, May 2, 2001, and November 2, 2001.  Sewell was
found to have violated his Burglary in the Second Degree probation on two
occasions:  May 2, 2001, and November 2, 2001.
(2)
By letter dated November 27, 2001, Sewell was advised by the
Superior Court that another violation of probation (VOP) hearing, Sewell=s
fifth, was scheduled for December 7, 2001. The VOP report alleged that
Sewell had violated three conditions of his two probations.1
                                                          
1Specifically, Sewell was alleged to have violated his probations when he (i) was
charged with a new  criminal offense during the supervision period; (ii) failed to report his
arrest on the new criminal charges; and (iii) failed to abide by an established curfew.
3
(3)
At the December 7 VOP hearing, Sewell admitted that he
violated a condition of his probations when he did not report to his probation
officer his arrest on new criminal charges.  As a consequence, the Superior
Court found that Sewell was guilty of VOP and resentenced him to three years
at Level V imprisonment for the Riot conviction, followed by two years and
six months at Level V imprisonment for the Burglary in the Second Degree
conviction.
(4)
In his opening brief on appeal, Sewell argues that, at the
December 7 VOP hearing, the probation officer misrepresented Sewell=s prior
criminal record, which caused the Superior Court to reimpose a sentence of
Level V incarceration.  Moreover, Sewell argues that the Superior Court
improperly admitted his probation officer=s testimony regarding his prior
4
criminal record, thereby violating Rule 404(b) of the Delaware Uniform Rules
of Evidence (D.R.E.).2  Sewell's claims are without merit.
                                                          
2D.R.E. 404(b) states in pertinent part: AEvidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts
is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in
conformity therewith.@
(5)
Sewell does not support his conclusory claim that his prior
criminal record is not as substantial as was  portrayed by the probation officer
at the VOP hearing, and his claim is otherwise unavailing.  Regardless of
Sewell=s prior criminal record, it is clear nonetheless in the cases sub judice
that Sewell has repeatedly violated probation.  The Superior Court thus acted
well within its discretion when it reimposed the suspended prison sentences
after finding, based upon Sewell=s admission, that Sewell had, once again,
violated  probation.
5
(6)
Sewell alleges that the Superior Court violated D.R.E. 404(b)
when it improperly considered his probation officer=s testimony as to prior
crimes.  The Delaware Uniform Rules of Evidence, however, do not apply
in a VOP hearing.3  The evidence in a VOP hearing need only be Asuch as to
reasonably satisfy the judge that the conduct of the probationer has not been
as good as required by the terms and conditions of probation.@4  In view of
Sewell=s admission that he violated his probations, it is clear that there was
sufficient evidence to support the Superior Court=s decision to revoke Sewell=s
probations.
                                                          
3D.R.E. 1101(b)(3).
4Brown v.  State, 249 A.2d 269, 272 (Del. 1968) (quoting Manning v.  United
States, 161 F.2d 827, 829 (5th Cir.  1947).
(7)
It is manifest on the face of Sewell's opening brief that this
appeal is without merit.  The issues raised are clearly controlled by settled
6
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/Joseph T. Walsh
     Justice