Title: Henderson v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 335, 2021
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: February 15, 2022

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
BYRON HENDERSON, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 335, 2021 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID No. 1901003580 (N) 
§                    
§                     
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:   January 10, 2022 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
February 15, 2022 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 
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) 
Byron Henderson filed this appeal from a Superior Court order 
sentencing him 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 Henderson’s 
opening brief that the appeal is without merit.  We agree and affirm. 
(2) 
On November 4, 2019, Henderson pleaded guilty to second-degree 
robbery.  The Superior Court sentenced him to five years of imprisonment, 
suspended for one year of Level III probation, with probation permitted to be flowed 
down to Level II after six months.   
2 
 
(3) 
In October 2020, the Superior Court found Henderson in violation of 
probation and imposed a VOP sentence.  Henderson did not appeal.   
(4) 
On September 8, 2021, a probation officer filed an administrative 
warrant.  The administrative warrant alleged that Henderson was in violation of 
probation because he had been charged with new criminal offenses, including 
harassment, terroristic threatening, stalking, and third-degree criminal trespass.  At 
a VOP hearing on September 28, 2021, the Superior Court found Henderson in 
violation of probation and sentenced him to five years of imprisonment, with credit 
for two days previously served, suspended after nine months for twelve months of 
Level III supervision with GPS monitoring.   
(5) 
Henderson has appealed from his VOP sentence.  On appeal, he appears 
to argue that he could not be found to be in violation of probation for incurring new 
criminal charges before he is convicted of the new charges.  The record before the 
Court on appeal does not reflect on what basis the Superior Court found Henderson 
to be in violation of probation.1  But the administrative warrant asserted the VOP 
based on new criminal charges, and Henderson concedes that he has pending 
criminal charges.  We therefore find no merit to Henderson’s appeal.  The Superior 
 
1 See Tricoche v. State, 525 A.2d 151, 154 (Del. 1987) (stating that the appellant has the burden to 
produce such portions of the transcript as are necessary to give this Court a fair and accurate 
account of the context in which the claim of error occurred and all evidence relevant to the 
challenged finding or conclusion (internal quotations omitted)). 
3 
 
Court has the authority to revoke probation and to impose a VOP sentence on the 
basis that a probationer has been charged with new criminal conduct, regardless of 
whether the new charges have yet been adjudicated.2 
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/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                  Chief Justice 
 
 
 
2 See Wood v. State, 2012 WL 3656404 (Del. Aug. 24, 2012) (“There is no merit to Wood’s claim 
that he could not be found guilty of a VOP on the basis of new and unproven criminal charges.  
Delaware law provides that the Superior Court has the authority to revoke probation on the basis 
that a probationer has been charged with new criminal conduct.”); Cruz v. State, 990 A.2d 409 
(Del. 2010) (affirming VOP that was based on probationer’s incurring new criminal charges of 
which defendant had been acquitted before VOP was imposed).  See also Kurzmann v. State, 903 
A.2d 702, 717 (Del. 2006) (“The State can proceed against a probationer by filing a VOP petition 
alleging a new criminal offense, even if the State concedes that it does not have enough evidence 
to prosecute the probationer and to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he has committed the 
underlying criminal offense.”).