IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

DALLAS DRUMMOND, 

 Defendant Below,

 Appellant,

 v.

STATE OF DELAWARE, 

 Plaintiff Below,

Appellee.

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§

No. 477, 2019

Court Below – Superior Court

of the State of Delaware

Cr. ID No. 1004007691 (K)

 1001008949A (K)

 Submitted: February 28, 2020

 Decided: April 13, 2020

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; TRAYNOR and MONTGOMERY-REEVES,

Justices.

 

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the appellee’s motion to 

affirm, and the record below, it appears to the Court that:

(1) The appellant, Dallas Drummond, filed this appeal from his sentencing 

for a violation of probation (“VOP”). The State has moved to affirm the judgment 

below on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Drummond’s opening brief 

that his appeal is without merit. We agree and affirm.

(2) On September 19, 2011, Drummond pleaded guilty to possession of 

marijuana, and the Superior Court sentenced him to six months of imprisonment, 

suspended for six months of Level III probation. On February 4, 2013, Drummond 
2

pleaded guilty to two counts of fourth-degree rape. For each count, the Superior 

Court sentenced him to fifteen years of imprisonment, suspended after four years for 

eighteen months of Level III probation. The sentencing order also provided that 

Drummond would be subject to GPS monitoring and prohibited him from having 

contact with any minor under eighteen years of age.

(3) On August 6, 2019, a probation officer filed a violation of probation 

(“VOP”) report alleging that Drummond’s GPS monitor had indicated that 

Drummond was on a high school campus on July 23, 2019, for approximately thirty 

minutes. At a VOP hearing on November 8, 2019, Drummond’s counsel stated that 

Drummond admitted the violation. Drummond addressed the court regarding 

various matters, and he admitted that he had been on school grounds. The Superior 

Court found Drummond in violation and imposed the following VOP sentence: for 

the first fourth-degree rape conviction, eleven years of imprisonment, suspended 

after completion of the Transitions Sex Offender Program for two years of Level III 

probation with GPS monitoring; for the second fourth-degree rape conviction,

eleven years of imprisonment, suspended for two years of Level III probation with 

GPS monitoring; and for the marijuana conviction, six months of imprisonment, 

suspended for two years of Level III probation with GPS monitoring. 

(4) Drummond has appealed from his VOP sentence. On appeal, he argues 

that his probation officer had a conflict and was biased against him; the State did not 
3

present any evidence at the VOP hearing that demonstrated that Drummond was on 

school grounds, and the court did not listen to his explanations about why he was at 

the school; and another probation officer threatened Drummond by stating that 

Drummond needed to satisfy the conditions of his probation or he would go back to 

prison for life.

(5) After careful consideration, we find no merit to Drummond’s appeal. 

Drummond appeared at the VOP hearing represented by counsel. He admitted that 

he had violated probation, and the Superior Court found him in violation based on 

that admission. Drummond’s admission to violating probation constitutes sufficient 

evidence to sustain the Superior Court’s finding of a VOP.1

 Finally, Drummond did 

not present his claims that his probation officer was biased or that another officer 

threatened him to the Superior Court at the VOP hearing, and we find no plain error 

in the record with respect to these issues.2

 

1 E.g., Cook v. State, 2019 WL 949372 (Del. Feb. 25, 2019); Lougheed v. State, 2016 WL 5899238 

(Del. Oct. 10, 2016). 

2 See DEL. SUPR. CT. R. 8 (“Only questions fairly presented to the trial court may be presented for 

review . . . .”); Scarborough v. State, 2018 WL 2944438, at *2 (Del. June 8, 2018) (reviewing 

claim that probation officer’s sentence recommendation was biased for plain error because 

defendant had not raised the claim below). 
4

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Affirm is 

GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.

 BY THE COURT:

 /s/ Tamika R. Montgomery-Reeves

 Justice