Title: Cooper v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
FREDERICK COOPER, 
 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 87, 2012 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 080129919 
§   
§   
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:  June 22, 2012 
 
 
 
 
  Decided:  July 30, 2012 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 30th day of July 2012, upon consideration of the parties’ briefs and the 
record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Frederick Cooper, filed this appeal from the 
Superior Court’s modified sentence for a violation of probation (VOP).  The gist of 
Cooper’s arguments is that he was denied due process, the VOP was not supported 
by competent evidence, and the Superior Court judge sentenced him with a closed 
mind.  We find no merit to any of these claims.  Accordingly, we affirm the 
Superior Court’s judgment. 
 
(2) 
The record reflects that Cooper pled guilty on August 12, 2008 to one 
count of Aggravated Menacing.  The Superior Court immediately sentenced him to 
 
2
five years at Level V incarceration, to be suspended after serving one year in 
prison for eighteen months at Level III probation.  In a separate case, Cooper also 
pled guilty in September 2008 to one count each of Burglary in the Second Degree 
and Assault in the Second Degree.  For those charges, the Superior Court 
immediately sentenced him to a total period of seven years at Level V 
incarceration, to be suspended after serving one year in prison for two years at 
Level III probation (to be served consecutively to the probationary term of his 
August 2008 sentence). 
 
(3) 
In February 2011, Cooper was indicted on multiple criminal charges 
including Burglary in the First Degree and Assault in the Second Degree.  As a 
result of these new charges, he also was charged with violating his August 2008 
and September 2008 probationary sentences.  In June 2011, Cooper pled guilty to 
one count of Assault in the Second Degree.  Cooper’s plea agreement with the 
State also resolved the VOP charge associated with his September 2008 sentence, 
but did not resolve the VOP charge associated with his August 2008 sentence.  The 
Superior Court immediately sentenced Cooper for Assault in the Second Degree to 
three years at Level V incarceration to be suspended immediately for probation.  
On the VOP adjudication, the Superior Court sentenced Cooper to a total period of 
six years at Level V incarceration, to be suspended after serving six months in 
prison for more probation. 
 
3
 
(4) 
One month later, in July 2011, Cooper again appeared before the 
Superior Court for the VOP charge associated with his August 2008 sentence.  
Defense counsel requested a continuance of the hearing in order to determine if 
Cooper’s June 2011 plea had resolved the pending VOP charge.  Once the Superior 
Court determined that the earlier plea had not resolved the pending VOP charge, 
Cooper was informed that he could withdraw his earlier guilty plea and was 
ordered to inform the Superior Court of his intention within ten days.  Although 
Cooper filed a letter requesting more time to respond, he never filed a motion 
seeking to withdraw his guilty plea or filed any objection to scheduling a hearing 
on the pending VOP. 
 
(5) 
Accordingly, on October 28, 2011, the Superior Court held a hearing 
on the remaining VOP charge.  Cooper appeared with counsel and requested the 
Superior Court to sentence him to mental health and substance abuse treatment.  
The Superior Court found Cooper in violation of his probation and sentenced him 
to four years at Level V incarceration.  The Superior Court ordered an evaluation 
by the Treatment Access Center (TASC) and retained jurisdiction to modify the 
sentence once it received the TASC evaluation.  In January 2012, the Superior 
Court issued a modified sentencing order, which sentenced Cooper to four years at 
Level V incarceration, to be suspended upon Cooper’s successful completion of 
the Key Program for the balance to be served at the Level IV Crest Program, to be 
 
4
suspended upon Cooper’s successful completion of Level IV Crest for the balance 
to be served at Level III Crest Aftercare.  It is from this order that Cooper now 
appeals. 
 
(6) 
In his opening brief on appeal, Cooper argues that his VOP charge 
was supposed to have been resolved in July 2011 with his other charges and that he 
was brought before the Superior Court again in October 2011 without proper 
notice.  He also argues that the October 2011 VOP hearing did not comport with 
the minimum requirements of due process and that there was no competent 
evidence to support the Superior Court’s finding that he violated probation.  
Finally, Cooper contends that the Superior Court abused its discretion in 
sentencing him to more than Level III treatment. 
 
(7) 
We find no merit to any of Cooper’s contentions.  The record reflects 
that Cooper was notified that he was being charged with a VOP as a result of new 
criminal charges.  After Cooper had pled guilty to those charges, the Superior 
Court had sufficient competent evidence to find that Cooper had violated his 
probation.1  Accordingly, we find no due process violation.  Moreover, the 
Superior Court gave Cooper the opportunity to withdraw his June 2011 guilty plea 
because that plea mistakenly had not resolved all of Cooper’s pending charges.  
Cooper did not move to withdraw his plea, and he raised no objection to 
                                                 
1 See Collins v. State, 897 A.2d 159, 160-61 (Del. 2006) (holding that a VOP need only be proven by “some 
competent evidence” and that a defendant’s admission was sufficient competent evidence). 
 
5
proceeding with the October 2011 VOP hearing.  Having failed to object below, 
despite being given the specific opportunity to do so, we find that Cooper has 
waived any claim that his June 2011 guilty plea should have resolved all of his 
pending VOP charges.2 
 
(8) 
Cooper’s final claim is that the Superior Court sentenced him with a 
closed mind.  A judge sentences a defendant with a closed mind when the sentence 
is based upon a preconceived bias rather than consideration of the nature of the 
offense and the character of the defendant.3  In this case, the record reflects that the 
Superior Court listened to both parties’ arguments about the appropriate sentence 
in Cooper’s case.  The judge then ordered a TASC evaluation to further aid the 
judge in formulating an appropriate sentence and modified his sentence 
accordingly.  Under these circumstances, we find nothing in the record to support 
Cooper’s contention that the judge sentenced him with a closed mind.   
  
   
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
                                                 
2 Warner v. State, 2001 WL 1512985 (Del. Nov. 21, 2001). 
3 Weston v. State, 832 A.2d 742, 746 (Del. 2003).