Case Title: DeJohn v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 74, 2019

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2019-08-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
FREDERICK S. DEJOHN, II, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 74, 2019 
§ 
§  Court Below: Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID. No. 0107018127 (N) 
§   
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted:  July 12, 2019 
Decided:  August 20, 2019 
 
Before VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
After consideration of the notice to show cause and the appellant’s response, 
it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Frederick S. DeJohn, filed a notice of appeal from the 
Superior Court’s January 29, 2019 order denying DeJohn’s motion for modification 
of sentence.  DeJohn argues that the Department of Correction extended the 
probationary period to which he was subject beyond that imposed by the Superior 
Court’s sentencing order.  While the appeal was pending, DeJohn completed his 
sentence, and he is no longer subject to supervision.   
 
2 
(2) 
The Chief Deputy Clerk issued a notice to DeJohn directing him to 
show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as moot.  In his response, 
DeJohn argues that the Department of Correction should not be permitted to 
“overstep[] their authority” in the future and that the primary purpose of the appeal 
is “to ensure that the balance of government and its powers are correctly upheld.”   
(3) 
After careful consideration, the Court concludes that DeJohn’s 
completion of his sentence has rendered this appeal moot.1  Satisfaction of a sentence 
generally renders a case moot unless a defendant demonstrates sufficient collateral 
legal disabilities or burdens flowing from the conviction to justify appellate review.2  
DeJohn’s arguments do not establish any prospective consequences to DeJohn from 
the Superior Court’s denial of his motion for sentence modification.  Accordingly, 
DeJohn’s completion of his sentence renders this appeal moot.  Moreover, to the 
extent DeJohn is attempting to affect the potential future conduct of the Department 
of Correction in other cases, any decision on his arguments “would amount to an 
impermissible advisory opinion and would be a waste of scarce judicial resources.”3   
                                                 
1 Collins v. State, 2016 WL 97465 (Del. Jan. 6, 2016). 
2 E.g., Ross v. State, 2015 WL 410270 (Del. Jan. 28, 2015); Hall v. State, 2013 WL 1932727 (Del. 
May 8, 2013). 
3 Collins, 2016 WL 97465, at *1. 
 
3 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the appeal is DISMISSED as  
moot. 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/  James T. Vaughn, Jr.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice