Title: Creed v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
TINA CREED, 
 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 409, 2023 
§ 
§  Court Below–Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID Nos. 1810001874 (K) 
§                      1903017054 (K) 
§   
§                                                                      
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: February 15, 2024 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
April 29, 2024 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and GRIFFITHS, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
After consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, her supplemental opening 
brief, the appellee’s motion to affirm, and the Superior Court record, it appears to 
the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Tina Creed, appeals the Superior Court’s order 
sentencing her for a violation of probation (“VOP”).  The State has filed a motion to 
affirm the judgment below on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Creed’s 
opening briefs that her appeal is without merit.  We agree and affirm. 
(2) 
In March 2019, Creed pleaded guilty to one count of misdemeanor theft 
in Criminal Case No. 1810001874.  The Superior Court sentenced her to one year of 
incarceration, suspended for one year of Level II probation.  Two weeks later, 
2 
 
Creed’s probation officer filed an administrative warrant alleging that Creed was in 
violation of the terms of her probation because she had been arrested for new 
criminal charges in Criminal Case No. 1903017054.  The Superior Court found her 
in violation and resentenced her to one year of incarceration, suspended for one year 
of Level II probation, later modified to be followed by one year of Level I probation 
(restitution only).  In Criminal Case No. 1903017054, Creed pleaded guilty to one 
count of first-degree criminal trespass and one count of endangering the welfare of 
a child.  For criminal trespass, the Superior Court sentenced Creed to one year of 
incarceration, suspended for one year of Level II probation followed by one year of 
Level I probation (restitution only).1 
(3) 
On August 5, 2022, the Superior Court found that Creed had violated 
the terms of her probation in both cases and resentenced her as follows: for criminal 
trespass, to one year of incarceration suspended for one year Level III probation 
(with GPS and TASC monitoring) followed by one year of Level I probation 
(restitution only); and for misdemeanor theft, to eleven months and seventeen days 
of incarceration, suspended for one year of Level III probation followed by one year 
of Level I probation (restitution only). 
(4) 
In September 2023, Creed’s probation officer filed an administrative 
warrant alleging that Creed had violated the terms of her probation by: (i) failing to 
 
1 The Superior Court imposed a fine for endangering the welfare of a child. 
3 
 
report to her probation officer or her TASC officer as directed; and (ii) failing to 
comply with TASC’s drug screening requirements.  Following a hearing on October 
6, 2023, the Superior Court found that Creed had violated the terms of her probation 
and resentenced her as follows: for misdemeanor theft, to eleven months and 
seventeen days of incarceration, suspended after the successful completion of a 
Level V treatment program for one year of Level III probation followed by one year 
of Level I probation (restitution only); and for criminal trespass, to nine months and 
eight days of incarceration, suspended after the successful completion of a Level V 
treatment program for one year of Level III probation followed by one year of Level 
I probation (restitution only).  This appeal followed. 
(5) 
Probation is an “act of grace,” and the Superior Court has broad 
discretion when deciding whether to revoke a defendant’s probation.2  Once the 
Superior Court determines that a defendant has violated the terms of her probation, 
the Superior Court may impose any period of incarceration up to and including the 
balance of Level V time remaining on the original sentence.3 
(6) 
In her opening brief on appeal,4 Creed’s claims may be fairly 
summarized as follows: (i) she did not want to admit to the VOP; (ii) she believed 
 
2 Kurzmann v. State, 903 A.2d 702, 716 (Del. 2006). 
3 11 Del. C. § 4334(c); Pavulak v. State, 880 A.2d 1044, 1046 (Del. 2005). 
4 The Court has consolidated the arguments Creed makes in her opening brief with those she makes 
in her supplemental opening brief. 
4 
 
her charges had been resolved at a TASC status hearing held on September 21, 2023; 
and (iii) the probation officer’s sentencing recommendation was unfair.  In 
connection with these arguments, Creed complains of ineffective assistance of 
counsel.  We find no merit to Creed’s claims.  
(7) 
First, it is clear from the entirety of the VOP hearing transcript that 
Creed admitted to violating the terms of her probation when, in her words, she “fell 
off track.”5  Second, the court explained to Creed that since the TASC hearing, “there 
was confirmation of a positive test that the [c]ourt did not have the benefit of at the 
time of the TASC hearing.”6  Third, the “fairness” of Creed’s probation officer’s 
sentencing recommendation is not an appropriate issue for appeal.  In any event, 
Creed’s VOP sentence does not exceed the balance of Level V time remaining on 
her original sentence.  Finally, it is settled Delaware law that this Court will not 
ordinarily consider allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel made for the first 
time on direct appeal,7 and we see no reason to deviate from this rule here. 
 
 
 
5 State’s Mot. to Affirm, Ex. E at 7; see also id. at 4 (“I had one mess-up when he came home.”); 
Suppl. Opening Br. at 2 (“[I]t wasn’t like I messed up the whole time.”). 
6 State’s Mot. to Affirm, Ex. E at 6. 
7 Foster v. State, 2009 WL 1456992, at *2 (Del. May 26, 2009) (citing Desmond v. State, 654 A.2d 
821, 829 (Del. 1994)). 
5 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to affirm 
is GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
       Chief Justice