Title: Thompson v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 620, 2015
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: August 19, 2016

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
RONNIE L. THOMPSON, 
 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 620, 2015 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID 1209013046 
§   
§   
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: June 1, 2016 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
August 19, 2016 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND and SEITZ, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 19th day of August 2016, upon consideration of the appellant’s opening 
brief, the State’s motion to affirm, and the record below, it appears to the Court 
that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Ronnie L. Thompson, filed this appeal from 
the Superior Court’s order sentencing him for his third violation of probation 
(VOP).  The State filed a motion to affirm the judgment below on the ground that it 
is manifest on the face of Thompson’s opening brief that his appeal is without 
merit.  We agree and affirm.   
 
(2) 
The record reflects that Thompson pled guilty in December 2012 to 
one count of Drug Dealing.  The Superior Court immediately sentenced him to five 
 
2 
years at Level V incarceration to be suspended after serving ninety days in prison 
for eighteen months at Level III probation.  Thereafter, the Superior Court twice 
found Thompson in violation of his probation and resentenced him on July 12, 
2013 and on May 6, 2015, respectively.1   
 
(3) 
On October 5, 2015, Thompson was charged with his third VOP.  The 
violation report alleged that Thompson had violated three conditions of his 
probation by: (i) consuming alcohol for which he tested positive by having a 0.16 
blood alcohol content (“BAC”); (ii) failing to properly charge his electronic GPS 
monitoring device; and (iii) breaking curfew.  At the violation hearing held on 
October 21, 2015, the probation officer testified about the circumstances 
underlying all three violations.  Thompson admitted to consuming alcohol in 
violation of his probation conditions.  The Superior Court found him in violation 
and immediately sentenced him to three years and nine months at Level V, to be 
suspended upon successful completion of the Level V Key Program to be followed 
by Level IV Crest and Level III Crest Aftercare.  This is Thompson’s appeal from 
that judgment. 
                                                 
1 On July 12, 2013, the Superior Court sentenced Thompson on his first VOP to four years and 
nine months at Level V incarceration, to be suspended immediately for four years at Level IV 
(VOP Center), to be suspended after serving nine months at the VOP Center for eight months at 
Level IV Halfway House followed by two years at Level III probation.  On May 6, 2015, the 
Superior Court sentenced Thompson on his second VOP to three years and nine months at Level 
V, to be suspended immediately for three years and nine months at Level IV Work Release, to be 
suspended after six months at Work Release for one year at Level III probation. 
 
3 
 
(4) 
Thompson raises five issues in his opening brief on appeal.  He 
contends that: (i) the Superior Court had a closed mind in sentencing him; (ii) the 
judge relied on false information in sentencing him; (iii) his due process rights 
under Superior Court Criminal Rule 32.1 were violated; (iv) the probation officers 
violated his constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment by entering his 
home without consent; and (v) the probation officer who testified at the VOP 
hearing was vindictive and recommended an unduly harsh sentence.  At the heart 
of Thompson’s appeal is his allegation that his probation officer falsely testified 
that Thompson was combative and threatening when the probation officers entered 
his home and that this conduct, which was not charged in the violation report, was 
relied upon by the Superior Court in sentencing him.   
 
(5) 
After careful consideration, we find no merit to Thompson’s appeal.  
Probation is an “act of grace,” and the Superior Court has broad discretion in 
deciding whether to revoke a defendant’s probation.2  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.3  A preponderance 
of evidence means “some competent evidence” to “reasonably satisfy the judge 
                                                 
2 Kurzmann v. State, 903 A.2d 702, 716 (Del. 2006). 
3 Id. 
 
4 
that the conduct of the probationer has not been as good as required by the 
conditions of probation.”4   
 
(6) 
In this case, Thompson appeared at the VOP hearing represented by 
counsel.  He raised no objection to the circumstances of his arrest or the contents 
of the violation report and admitted, in fact, that he had violated his probation by 
consuming alcohol.  The Superior Court found him in violation based solely on 
that admission and stated: 
Let me be really clear.  The violation is pretty straightforward.  You’ve 
admitted that you were .16 [BAC], and you’ve admitted that that is in 
violation of the terms of your sentence. 
 
 
(7) 
Thompson’s admission to violating his probation constitutes sufficient 
evidence to sustain the Superior Court’s finding of a VOP.  Moreover, Thompson’s 
counseled admission to the probation violation also constitutes a waiver of both his 
due process claim under Rule 32.1 and his illegal search and seizure claim under 
the Fourth Amendment.5   
 
(8) 
Furthermore, we find no merit to Thompson’s claims that the Superior 
Court relied on false testimony and sentenced him with a closed mind.  On appeal, 
our review of a sentence generally ends upon a determination that the sentence is 
within the statutory limits prescribed by the legislature.6  In sentencing a defendant 
                                                 
4 Id. (quoting Collins v. State, 897 A.2d 159, 160 (Del. 2006)). 
5 Foster v. State, 2009 WL 1456992, at *2 (Del. May 26, 2009). 
6 Mayes v. State, 604 A.2d 839, 842 (Del. 1992). 
 
5 
for a VOP, the trial court is 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.7  In this case, the Superior Court sentenced Thompson to 
complete the Level V Key Program, but suspended the remainder of his sentence 
upon successful completion of Key to be followed by decreasing levels of 
supervision at Level IV Crest and Level III Crest Aftercare.  This sentence did not 
exceed the balance of the Level V time remaining to be served on Thompson’s 
sentences.  Moreover, there is nothing in the record to substantiate Thompson’s 
claim that his probation officer offered false testimony or acted vindictively at the 
VOP hearing to seek a harsher sentence or that the Superior Court otherwise 
sentenced him with a closed mind.8   
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT:  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice  
 
                                                 
7 11 Del. C. § 4334(c) (2015). 
8 Weston v. State, 832 A.2d 742, 746 (Del. 2003).