Title: Green v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ERIC D. GREEN, 
 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 244, 2006 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID Nos. 9707017752 and 
§  9708010456 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: July 13, 2007 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: September 25, 2007 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 25th day of September 2007, upon consideration of the parties’ 
briefs and the record on appeal, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Eric Green, filed this appeal from the Superior 
Court’s order sentencing him for violating the terms of his probation. Green 
argues in his opening brief that there was no competent evidence to support 
the Superior Court’s conclusion that Green had violated his probation and 
that the Superior Court failed to state the basis for its finding of a VOP.  We 
find no merit to Green’s appeal.  Accordingly, we affirm the Superior 
Court’s judgment. 
 
2
(2) 
The record reflects that a Superior Court jury convicted Green 
in July 1998 of two counts of Unlawful Sexual Contact in the Second 
Degree.  He was sentenced in September 1998 to a total period of four years 
at Level V imprisonment, to be suspended after serving two years for two 
years at decreasing levels of supervision.  In October 1998, another Superior 
Court jury convicted Green of Unlawful Sexual Intercourse in the Third 
Degree.  He was sentenced on that charge to ten years at Level V 
imprisonment, to be suspended after serving eighteen months for five and a 
half years at decreasing levels of supervision.   
(3) 
Thereafter, Green was found in violation of the terms of his 
probation in December 2001, February 2003, July 2004, and October 2004.  
In April 2006, the Superior Court found that Green had violated a special 
condition of his probation by having contact with children.  The Superior 
Court sentenced him on this violation to serve eight and a half years at Level 
V supervision, to be suspended after serving three years for decreasing 
levels of supervision.  This appeal followed. 
(4) 
In his opening brief on appeal, Green asserts that the evidence 
presented against him at the contested VOP hearing was insufficient to 
support the Superior Court’s finding of a violation.  Green asserts that the 
testimony of the State’s sole eyewitness, his girlfriend’s mother, was 
 
3
incompetent because she could not specify any particular dates when she 
saw Green in the company of her grandchildren. Green also argues that the 
Superior Court erred in “failing to state the evidence relied upon or the 
reason for revoking [his] probation.” 
(5) 
After careful consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record 
on appeal, we find it manifest that the judgment of the Superior Court should 
be affirmed.  The Superior Court did not abuse its discretion in finding 
Green guilty of violating probation because the eyewitness testimony 
presented at the hearing was more than sufficient to establish the violation 
by a preponderance of the evidence.1  Moreover, the transcript of the VOP 
hearing clearly reflects the Superior Court’s conclusion, by a preponderance 
of the evidence, that Green was in violation of the terms of his probation 
because he had had contact with children.  Accordingly, Green’s second 
claim is without merit. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                                 
1 See Kurzmann v. State, 903 A.2d 702, 718 (Del. 2006).