Title: Hill v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

1 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
VERNON J. HILL,   
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 566, 2008 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0312013781  
§                       
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: April  9, 2009 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: April 21, 2009 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 21st day of April 2009, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
brief filed pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 26(c), his attorney’s motion to 
withdraw, and the State’s response thereto, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
On October 16, 2008, the defendant-appellant, Vernon J. Hill, 
admitted to committing a violation of probation (“VOP”) in connection with 
his April 2004 sentence for Possession of a Controlled Substance Within 
1000 Feet of a School and his September 2006 sentence for Possession with 
Intent to Deliver a Controlled Substance.  On the first VOP, he was 
sentenced to six and a half years at Level V, to be suspended after sixty days 
after which he would be discharged as unimproved.  On the second VOP, he 
 
2 
was sentenced to three years at Level V, to be suspended for two years at 
Level IV, in turn to be suspended after six months, with the balance of the 
sentence to be served at Level III probation.  This is Hill’s direct appeal. 
 
(2) 
Hill’s counsel has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw 
pursuant to Rule 26(c).  The standard and scope of review applicable to the 
consideration of a motion to withdraw and an accompanying brief under 
Rule 26(c) is twofold:  (a) the Court must be satisfied that counsel has made 
a conscientious examination of the record and the law for claims that could 
arguably support the appeal; and (b) the Court must conduct its own review 
of the record and determine whether the appeal is so totally devoid of at least 
arguably appealable issues that it can be decided without an adversary 
presentation.1 
 
(3) 
Hill’s counsel asserts that, based upon a careful and complete 
examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable issues.  By 
letter, Hill’s counsel informed Hill of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and 
provided him with a copy of the motion to withdraw, the accompanying 
brief and the complete transcript.  Hill also was informed of his right to 
supplement his attorney’s presentation.  Hill responded with a brief that 
raises several issues for this Court’s consideration.  The State has responded 
                                                 
1 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 
U.S. 429, 442 (1988); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). 
 
3 
to the position taken by Hill’s counsel as well as the issues raised by Hill and 
has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment. 
 
(4) 
The transcript of the October 16, 2008 VOP hearing reflects 
that, at the beginning of the hearing, the probation officer stated two grounds 
for the alleged probation violation---first, Hill was charged with robbery on 
September 28, 2008, and, second, on September 30, 2008, Hill admitted to 
his probation officer that he had used heroin the previous day.  In addressing 
the Superior Court judge, Hill maintained his innocence regarding the 
robbery charge, but admitted that he had used a bag of heroin on September 
29, 2008, because he was upset about his arrest.  When Hill began to explain 
the events leading to the robbery charge, the Superior Court judge advised 
him not to address the issue.  There was no further mention of the robbery 
charge during the remainder of the hearing. 
 
(5) 
Hill raises several issues for this Court’s consideration, which 
may fairly be characterized as follows: a) because the probation officer 
testified at the VOP hearing about the robbery charge in violation of the 
judge’s admonition and because that charge was later dropped, his VOP 
sentence should be vacated; and b) his counsel made errors in connection 
with his Rule 26(c) brief. 
 
4 
 
(6) 
With respect to Hill’s first claim, the record does not support 
his contention that the probation officer testified about his robbery charge in 
contravention of an admonition by the judge.  When the probation officer 
mentioned the charge as one of the grounds for the VOP at the beginning of 
the hearing, the judge had issued no injunction against addressing the 
subject.  The Superior Court judge later curtailed Hill’s explanation of the 
events leading to the robbery charge in order to prevent any prejudice to Hill 
in any future proceedings on that charge.   
 
(7) 
Moreover, it appears that the Superior Court did not even 
consider the robbery charge as a basis for the finding of a VOP, since Hill’s 
admission that he had used heroin was sufficient, in and of itself, to revoke 
his probation.  Even if the Superior Court had considered Hill’s arrest for 
robbery, there would have been no error, since the Superior Court has the 
authority to revoke probation even where the defendant has been acquitted 
of criminal charges involving the same conduct that gave rise to the VOP.2     
 
(8) 
Hill also claims that his counsel made errors in connection with 
his Rule 26(c) brief.  Specifically, Hill contends that his counsel misstated 
his previous charges and erroneously stated that Hill did not provide any 
                                                 
2 Jones v. State, Del. Supr., No. 223, 2001, Walsh, J. (Oct. 31, 2001) (citing Gibbs v. 
State, 760 A.2d 541, 544 (Del. 2000)). 
 
 
5 
points for the Court to consider.  Our review of Hill’s counsel’s brief does 
not support those contentions.  As such, we conclude that the claim is 
without merit. 
 
(9) 
 This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has 
concluded that Hill’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any 
arguably appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Hill’s counsel has 
made a conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has 
properly determined that Hill could not raise a meritorious claim in this 
appeal.   
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State of Delaware’s 
motion to affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is 
AFFIRMED.  The motion to withdraw is moot. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice