Title: Batson v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 136, 2011
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: August 15, 2011

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
CLAYTON J. BATSON,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
          Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 136, 2011 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr. ID Nos. 0504000712  
§                     0506010304 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: July 19, 2011 
Decided: August 15, 2011 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 15th day of August 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, Clayton J. Batson, filed an appeal from the 
Superior Court’s March 3, 2011 violation of probation (“VOP”) sentence.  The 
plaintiff-appellee, the State of Delaware, has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s 
judgment on the ground that it is manifest on the face of the opening brief that the 
appeal is without merit.1  We agree and affirm. 
                                                 
1 Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
 
2
 
(2) 
The record before us reflects that Batson pleaded guilty to Attempted 
Robbery in the First Degree, Assault in the Second Degree and Burglary in the 
Third Degree in connection with two separate criminal actions.  He was sentenced 
to a total of 21 years of Level V incarceration, to be suspended after 3 years and 
successful completion of the Key Program for decreasing levels of supervision.  
Specifically on the attempted robbery conviction, Batson was sentenced to 10 
years at Level V, to be suspended after 3 years for 4 years at Level III probation.    
 
(3) 
On March 3, 2011, the Superior Court found that Batson had 
committed a VOP for failing to comply with the terms of the Crest Program.  He 
was sentenced to a total of 15 years at Level V, to be suspended for decreasing 
levels of supervision.  Specifically on the attempted robbery conviction, he was 
sentenced to 7 years at Level V, to be suspended for Level IV Crest, in turn to be 
suspended following successful completion of the program for 4 years at Level III 
Crest Aftercare. 
 
(4) 
In this appeal from the Superior Court’s VOP sentence, Batson claims 
that a) the Superior Court’s VOP sentence for attempted robbery violates double 
jeopardy because he has already completed that sentence; and b) his counsel 
provided ineffective assistance at the VOP hearing.   
 
(5) 
There is no factual basis for Batson’s claim of a double jeopardy 
violation with respect to his attempted robbery sentence.  Once Batson had 
 
3
completed his suspended 3-year Level V sentence for attempted robbery and 
thereafter committed a VOP, the Superior Court had the authority to require him to 
serve the remainder of the Level V sentence that was originally imposed.2  Because 
Batson had another 7 years remaining on his original sentence for attempted 
robbery, the Superior Court did not abuse its discretion when it sentenced him to 
all of that Level V time.    
 
(6) 
With respect to Batson’s second claim of ineffective assistance of 
counsel, this Court will not review ineffectiveness claims that are asserted for the 
first time on direct appeal.3  Because the Superior Court did not consider Batson’s 
claim in the first instance, we decline to address it for the first time in these 
proceedings. 
 
(7) 
It is manifest on the face of the 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. 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
2  Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, §4334(c); State v. Sloman, 886 A.2d 1257, 1260 (Del. 2005). 
3 Duross v. State, 494 A.2d 1265, 1268 (Del. 1985). 
 
4
 
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/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice