Title: Bagwell v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 23, 2002
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: April 30, 2002

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
JODY P. BAGWELL,
Defendant Below-
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF DELAWARE,
Plaintiff Below-
Appellee.
§
§
§  No. 23, 2002
§
§  Court Below—Superior Court
§  of the State of Delaware,
§  in and for Sussex County
§  Cr. ID No. 0107009948
§
§
§
Submitted: March 28, 2002
  Decided:
April 30, 2002
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH, and HOLLAND, Justices.
O R D E R
This 30th day of April 2002, 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, Jody Bagwell, filed this appeal from
the Superior Court’s adjudication and sentence for Bagwell’s violation of
probation (VOP).  The State has moved to affirm on the ground that it is
manifest on the face of Bagwell’s opening brief that his appeal is without
merit.  We agree and affirm.
(2)
The record reflects that Bagwell pled guilty on October 15,
2001 to two counts of third degree assault and three counts of endangering
the welfare of a child. The Superior Court sentenced Bagwell on each count
2
to one year at Level V incarceration.  Each sentence was suspended entirely
for one year of Level III probation.  The first two sentences of probation
were to run consecutively, and the last three sentences of probation were to
run concurrently with the first sentence of probation. In November 2001,
Bagwell was charged with violating a condition of his probation by testing
positive for marijuana use. On December 13, 2001, the Superior Court,
following a hearing, concluded that Bagwell had violated probation.  The
Superior Court sentenced Bagwell to total period of five years at Level V
incarceration suspended entirely for five consecutive years of Level III
probation.
(3)
On appeal, Bagwell does not contest the Superior Court’s VOP
adjudication.  Bagwell nonetheless contends that the Superior Court’s
written sentencing order is inconsistent with the sentence pronounced by the
Superior Court following the December 2001 VOP hearing.  Bagwell asserts
that the Superior Court sentenced him to only one year at Level III
probation.
(4)
Bagwell’s contention is unsupported by the record.  Both the
written sentencing order and the Superior Court’s Judicial Action Form
reflect that Bagwell was found in violation of probation on each of his five
underlying sentences and was sentenced to one year at Level V suspended
3
for one year at Level III for each charge.  Despite being informed by the
Clerk of this Court that he either must make arrangements to pay for the
transcript of the VOP hearing or else request the Superior Court to prepare
the transcript at State expense, Bagwell made no attempt to arrange for
preparation of the VOP hearing transcript.  As the appellant, Bagwell has the
responsibility to provide the Court with such portions of the transcript to
support his claims of error.1  In the absence of any record evidence to
support his claim that the VOP sentencing order is inconsistent with the
sentence orally pronounced by the Superior Court, we find Bagwell’s appeal
to be without merit.
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to
affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
   s/Joseph T. Walsh
Justice
                                                
1 Tricoche v. State, 525 A.2d 151, 154 (Del. 1987).