Title: Foraker v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 498, 2011
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: December 13, 2011

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
RONALD W. FORAKER,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 498, 2011 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, in and 
§  for Sussex County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0804004765 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
                                         Submitted:  November 23, 2011 
 
  Decided:    December 13, 2011 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 13th day of December 2011, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief and the appellee’s motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 25(a), it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) The defendant-appellant, Ronald W. Foraker, filed an appeal 
from the Superior Court’s August 16, 2011 violation of probation (“VOP”) 
sentencing order.  The plaintiff-appellee, the State of Delaware, has moved 
to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment on the ground that it is manifest on 
 
2
the face of the opening brief that the appeal is without merit.1  We agree and 
affirm. 
 
(2) The record before us reflects that, in May 2008, Foraker, a sex 
offender, pleaded guilty to Loitering Within 500 Feet of a School.  He was 
sentenced to 2 years of Level V incarceration, to be suspended for 1 year of 
Level III probation.  In January 2009, Foraker was found to have committed 
a VOP.  He was sentenced to 2 years at Level V, to be suspended after 
successful completion of the Key Program for 1 year at Level IV Residential 
Substance Abuse Treatment, followed by 1 year of Level III Aftercare.  
Foraker also was sentenced to 17 months at Level V and the Key Program 
for failing to re-register as a sex offender. 
 
(3) On August 16, 2009, following a hearing, the Superior Court 
again found that Foraker had committed a violation of the probationary 
portion of his loitering sentence.  Foraker was sentenced to 18 months at 
Level V, with credit for 26 days previously served, to be suspended after 6 
months for 1 year of Level IV Work Release, followed by 6 months at Level 
III probation.   
 
(4) In this appeal from the Superior Court’s latest VOP sentencing 
order, Foraker claims that a) his public defender provided ineffective 
                                                 
1 Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
 
3
assistance at the VOP hearing; b) his probation officer testified falsely at the 
hearing that he had violated his probation; and c) he has a medical condition 
that warrants a lesser VOP sentence. 
 
(5) Brooks’ first claim is that his counsel provided ineffective 
assistance at his VOP hearing.  This Court will not consider an ineffective 
assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal that has not been fully 
adjudicated by the trial court.2  Brooks did not present his ineffectiveness 
claim to the Superior Court in the first instance.  Therefore, we decline to 
address it for the first time in this direct appeal. 
 
(6) Brooks’ second claim is that his probation officer presented false 
testimony at the VOP hearing.  It is the responsibility of the appellant, even 
if representing himself, to provide a copy of the hearing transcript as factual 
support for his claim.3  The record reflects that Brooks failed to request a 
copy of the VOP hearing transcript.  That failure precludes appellate review 
of his claim regarding his probation officer’s testimony.4 
 
(7) Brooks’ third, and final, claim is that, because of a surgical 
procedure, he should have received a lesser VOP sentence.  To the extent 
that Brooks argues that the Superior Court judge abused his discretion in 
                                                 
2 Desmond v. State, 654 A.2d 821, 829 (Del. 1994). 
3 Tricoche v. State, 525 A.2d 151, 154 (Del. 1987). 
4 Id. 
 
4
imposing sentence, that argument will not be addressed due to Brooks’ 
failure to provide the VOP hearing transcript.5  To the extent that Brooks 
argues that his sentence is illegal, we conclude that any such claim is 
without merit because Brooks has presented no evidence, nor has he even 
argued, that his VOP sentence exceeded the amount of Level V time 
remaining on his loitering sentence.6   
 
(8) It is manifest on the face of the appellant’s opening brief that this 
appeal is without merit because the issues presented on appeal are controlled 
by settled Delaware law and, to the extent that judicial discretion is 
implicated, there was no abuse of discretion. 
 
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/ Jack B. Jacobs  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
       Justice  
 
                                                 
5 Id. 
6 Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, §4334(c); State v. Sloman, 886 A.2d 1257, 1260 (Del. 2005).