Title: Holmes v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
MARVIN HOLMES, 
 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 328, 2013 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 1105026213 
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: October 11, 2013 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: November 6, 2013 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 6th day of November 2013, upon consideration of the parties’ briefs 
and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Marvin Holmes, filed this appeal from the 
Superior Court’s sentence for his third violation of probation (VOP).  We find no 
merit to Holmes’ appeal.  Accordingly, we affirm the Superior Court’s judgment. 
 
(2) 
The record reflects that Holmes pled guilty in October 2011 to one 
count of Aggravated Menacing.  The Superior Court immediately sentenced him to 
two years at Level V incarceration to be suspended immediately for two years of 
probation.  In May 2012, the Superior Court found Holmes in violation of his 
probation and sentenced him to two years at Level V incarceration, with credit for 
 
2
117 days served, to be suspended for eighteen months at Level IV home 
confinement, to be suspended after six months for Level III probation.  In June 
2012, Holmes was charged with his second VOP.  In August 2012, he was found in 
violation and sentenced to one year and eight months at Level V, to be suspended 
after serving forty-five days in prison for eighteen months at Level IV work 
release, to be suspended after six months for Level III probation. 
 
(3) 
On October 22, 2012, Holmes was given a pass by the Plummer 
Center to meet with his lawyer.  Holmes failed to return from that appointment.  
He was arrested several months later in Pennsylvania.  He was charged with this 
third VOP. The State also charged him with a new criminal offense—Escape after 
Conviction—for his failure to return to the Plummer Center. In May 2013, the 
Superior Court found that Holmes had violated his probation and sentenced him to 
one year and 192 days at Level V incarceration to be followed by one year at Level 
II probation.  Holmes filed an appeal from the Superior Court’s order sentencing 
him for his third VOP. 
 
(4) 
Holmes’ sole argument on appeal is difficult to follow.  He appears to 
argue that he should not have been forced to appear at a contested fast track VOP 
hearing because the criminal indictment against him for Escape after Conviction 
was falsified.  Holmes admits in his reply brief, however, that he did, in fact, 
 
3
violate his probation by failing to return to the Plummer Center.  Nonetheless, he 
argues that he was denied due process at his VOP hearing. 
 
(5) 
We disagree.  In Delaware, a defendant accused of a VOP is not 
entitled to a formal trial.1  Nonetheless, certain minimum requirements of due 
process must be satisfied.2  Those requirements are set forth in Superior Court 
Criminal Rule 32.1.  Rule 32.1 provides that a defendant accused of a VOP is 
entitled to: (i) a bail hearing; (ii) written notice of the alleged violation; (iii) 
disclosure of the evidence against the defendant; (iv) an opportunity to appear and 
present evidence; (v) an opportunity to question adverse witnesses; and (vi) notice 
of the right to retain counsel.3   
 
(6) 
The record in this case reflects that all of these due process 
requirements were met.  The transcript of the VOP hearing reflects that Holmes 
appeared at the hearing with counsel.  He was given the opportunity to cross-
examine the State’s witnesses against him, and he was afforded the opportunity to 
testify in his own defense.  The State proved by a preponderance of the evidence 
that Holmes had violated the terms of his probation by leaving the Plummer Center 
                                                 
1 Jenkins v. State, 8 A.3d 1147, 1153 (Del. 2010). 
2 Id. (citing Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 786 (1973)). 
3 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 32.1(a) (2013). 
 
4
on a limited pass and failing to return.4  Under the circumstances, we find no due 
process violation or any error in the Superior Court’s finding that Holmes had 
violated his probation.  Accordingly, the Superior Court’s judgment shall be 
affirmed.  
 
 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                                 
4 See Kurzmann v. State, 903 A.2d 702, 716 (Del. 2006) (VOP need only be proven by a 
preponderance of evidence).