Title: Williams v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
TERRANCE WILLIAMS, 
 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 681, 2011 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, in and 
§  for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 1104000002 
§   
§ 
 
 
Submitted: April 9, 2012 
 
Decided: 
April 13, 2012 
 
Before HOLLAND, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 13th day of April 2012, upon consideration of the appellant’s opening 
brief and the State’s motion to affirm, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) The defendant-appellant, Terrance Williams, filed this appeal from the 
Superior Court’s sentence for a violation of probation (VOP).  The State of 
Delaware has filed a motion to affirm the judgment below on the ground that it is 
manifest on the face of Williams’ opening brief that his appeal is without merit.  
We agree and affirm. 
 
2
 
(2) The record reflects that Williams pled guilty in October 2011 to one 
count of Possession of a Deadly Weapon by a Person Prohibited.1  The Superior 
Court sentenced Williams, effective April 1, 2011, to eight years at Level V 
incarceration, to be suspended immediately for seven years and six months at 
Level IV, to be suspended after four months at Level IV for one year at Level III 
probation.  Williams did not appeal.  On November 23, 2011, Williams was found 
in violation of the terms of his probation.  The Superior Court sentenced him, 
effective November 10, 2011, to seven years and three months at Level V 
incarceration to be suspended after serving ninety days in prison for boot camp, 
and upon successful completion of boot camp the balance of the Level V time is to 
be suspended for six months at Level IV supervision followed by one year at Level 
III probation.  This appeal followed. 
 
(3) In his opening brief on appeal, Williams asserts that the prosecutor 
presented false and misleading evidence and that the Superior Court sentenced him 
with a closed mind, which is reflected in the excessive sentence imposed.   
 
(4) We find no merit to Williams’ contentions.  In a VOP hearing, unlike a 
criminal trial, the State is only required to prove by a preponderance of the 
evidence that the defendant violated the terms of his probation.2  A preponderance 
of evidence means “some competent evidence” to “reasonably satisfy the judge 
                                                 
1 DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 1448 (2007). 
2 Kurzmann v. State, 903 A.2d 702, 716 (Del. 2006). 
 
3
that the conduct of the probationer has not been as good as required by the 
conditions of probation.”3  The record in this case reflects that Williams admitted 
to violating his curfew and absconding from Level IV supervision.  The Superior 
Court was entitled to rely on these admissions and did not err in finding that 
Williams had violated probation. 
 
(5) Having determined that Williams had violated his probation, the 
Superior Court was authorized to impose any period of incarceration up to and 
including the balance of the Level V time remaining to be served on the original 
sentence.4   The Superior Court’s original sentence imposed seven and a half years 
of suspended time.  In sentencing him on the VOP, the Superior Court imposed 
seven years and three months to be suspended after Williams served ninety days in 
prison followed by his completion of boot camp.  The sentence was well within 
statutory limits, was not excessive, and in no way reflects a closed mind by the 
sentencing judge.5    
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
          Justice 
                                                 
3 Id. (quoting Collins v. State, 897 A.2d 159, 160 (Del. 2006)). 
4 11 Del. C. § 4334(c) (2007). 
5 See Weston v. State, 832 A.2d 742, 746 (Del. 2003).