Title: Houchens v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
  
GLENN R. HOUCHENS, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 289, 2002 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr.A. No. VS96-05-0171-06 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: August 9, 2002 
  Decided:   August 28, 2002 
 
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and HOLLAND, Justices  
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 28TH day of August 2002, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal 
and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Glenn R. Houchens, filed an appeal from 
the Superior Court’s May 10, 2002 finding of a violation of probation (“VOP”), 
for which he received a 1-year Level V sentence.1  We find no merit to the appeal. 
 Accordingly, we AFFIRM. 
                                                 
1Houchen’s 1996 sentence of 3 years at Level V was to be suspended after 1 year, with 
Houchens to be discharged immediately from probation as unimproved. 
 
 
-2- 
(2) 
In this appeal, Houchens claims that: a) he was improperly denied 
counsel at the VOP hearing; and b) his VOP sentence was excessive and should 
have taken into account the time he spent at Level IV Home Confinement. 
(3) 
In September 1996, Houchens pleaded guilty to Possession with 
Intent to Deliver Marijuana, Criminal Trespass in the Second Degree and 
Criminal Mischief.  He was sentenced2 on the possession conviction to 3 years 
incarceration at Level V, to be suspended for 6 months at Level IV Home 
Confinement, followed by 18 months at Level III.3  Houchens committed five 
VOP’s in connection with his possession conviction between 1997 and 2002 
prior to committing the VOP that is the subject of the instant appeal.   
                                                 
2Pursuant to SUPER. CT. CRIM. R. 11(e) (1) (C). 
3On the other convictions, Houchens was sentenced to a total of 90 days at Level V 
incarceration, to be suspended for 6 months at Level II. 
 
 
-3- 
(4) 
The rules of this Court direct all parties to order a transcript and to 
include in their appendix those portions of the record relevant to any claims on 
appeal.  As the appellant, Houchens has the burden of producing “such portions 
of the . . . transcript as are necessary to give this Court a fair and accurate 
account of the context in which the claim of error occurred” and “all evidence 
relevant to the challenged finding or conclusion.”4   
(5) 
The record in this case reflects that Houchens neither designated in 
his notice of appeal nor made any arrangements to obtain the transcript of his 
May 10, 2002 VOP hearing.  The lack of a transcript precludes this Court from 
determining whether Houchens informed the Superior Court of his desire for 
counsel, whether he objected to proceeding with the VOP hearing without 
counsel, whether he contested the violation, and whether the circumstances of 
the violation were so complex as to require legal representation.5  Houchen’s 
failure to provide a transcript of the VOP hearing, as required by the rules of this 
                                                 
4Tricoche v. State, 525 A.2d 151, 154 (Del. 1987); SUPR. CT. R. 9(e) (ii) and 14(e). 
5Jones v. State, 560 A.2d 1056, 1057 (Del. 1989) (citing Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 
778, 783, 790 (1973)). 
 
 
-4- 
Court, precludes appellate review of his claim that he was improperly denied 
counsel at the hearing.6 
                                                 
6Also, while Houchens contends he contacted the Public Defender’s Office regarding 
representation at the VOP hearing, he has provided no supporting documentation for that 
contention.   
 
 
-5- 
(6) 
The lack of a transcript also precludes appellate review of 
Houchens’ claim that he was sentenced to an excessive term of incarceration, 
since the record does not reflect whether this claim was presented to the Superior 
Court in the first instance and, if so, what factual allegations were made.  The 
claim is facially without merit in any case, since the Superior Court was required 
to credit Houchens only with “any period of actual incarceration.”7    
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
BY THE COURT: 
   s/Joseph T. Walsh 
      Justice 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
7DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 3901(c); Walt v. State, 727 A.2d 836, 839-40 (Del. 1999).