Title: Melody v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 373, 2002
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: October 16, 2002

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
SCOTT MELODY, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
         Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 373, 2002 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr.A. No. VN96-02-0894 
§                  VN95-02-1407 
§                  VN96-02-0192 
§                  VN96-02-0216 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: October 3, 2002 
 
 
 
 
  Decided:   October 16, 2002 
 
Before WALSH, HOLLAND and STEELE, Justices 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 16th day of October 2002, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
brief filed pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 26(c), his attorney’s motion to 
withdraw, and the State’s response thereto, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Scott Melody, was found in violation 
of probation (“VOP”).  Among other things, a prior Level V sentence for 
robbery was reimposed,1 to be suspended after successful completion of a 
                                                          
 
1The original sentence in IN96-02-0894 was 10 years incarceration at Level V, to be 
suspended after 4 years for 6 years at decreasing levels of probation.   
 
2
Level V substance abuse program for decreasing levels of probation.2  This 
is Melody’s direct appeal.   
 
(2) 
Melody’s trial counsel has filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  The standard and scope of review 
applicable to the consideration of a motion to withdraw and an 
accompanying brief under Rule 26(c) is twofold: (a) the Court must be 
satisfied that defense counsel has made a conscientious examination of the 
record and the law for claims that could arguably support the appeal; and (b) 
the Court must conduct its own review of the record and determine whether 
the appeal is so totally devoid of at least arguably appealable issues that it 
can be decided without an adversary presentation.3 
 
(3) 
Melody’s counsel asserts that, based upon a careful and 
complete examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable issues.  
By letter, Melody’s counsel informed Melody of the provisions of Rule 
26(c) and provided him with a copy of the motion to withdraw, the 
accompanying brief and the complete trial transcript.  Melody was also 
informed of his right to supplement his attorney’s presentation.  Melody 
                                                          
 
2In addition, Melody was sentenced to 1 year at Level II in IN96-02-0216 and to 1 year at 
Level II in IN96-02-0192, and was discharged as unimproved from his sentence in IN95-
02-1407.  
3Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 
U.S. 429, 442 (1988); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). 
 
3
responded with a brief that raises five issues for this Court’s consideration.  
The State has responded to the position taken by Melody’s counsel as well 
as the issue raised by Melody and has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s 
judgment. 
 
(4) 
Melody raises five issues for this Court’s consideration.  He 
claims his due process rights were violated because: a) there was no 
competent evidence to prove the VOP’s; b) he should not have been 
sentenced to a prison term for the VOP’s; c) he did not have an opportunity 
to confront adverse witnesses; d) he did not have an opportunity to question 
his probation officer, who was not present at the hearing; and e) he should 
not have been violated on the probationary portion of his robbery sentence, 
since he was not serving that sentence at the time of the VOP. 
 
(5) 
The VOP hearing transcript reflects that the supervisor of 
Melody’s probation officer appeared at the hearing.  The supervisor testified 
to two violations—a urine screen that showed a positive result for opiates 
and cocaine and several infractions of the mandatory curfew.  In response, 
Melody stated that he had not used drugs for 6 ½ years.  The supervisor 
disputed that statement, noting that Melody had admitted to him and to his 
probation officer at the time of his arrest that he had used cocaine but 
thought it would already be out of his system.  Melody explained his 
 
4
admission as follows: “. . . I have been through the system before.  I was 
hoping if I admitted something, and said I was sorry, they would let me 
slide. . . .”  The supervisor also testified that Melody’s probation officer 
believed that Melody was still using drugs, did not appear to want to stop 
and was in need of further substance abuse treatment. 
 
(6) 
Melody’s claim that there was no competent evidence to 
support the finding of a VOP is meritless in light of his drug test results and 
his admission that he had taken cocaine.  His claim that his robbery sentence 
should not have been reimposed is meritless, since, upon finding a VOP, the 
Superior Court was within its discretion to reimpose any period of 
incarceration remaining on that sentence.4  Melody’s claim that he was not 
allowed to confront adverse witnesses, and in particular his probation 
officer, is meritless, since the transcript reflects that he was given ample 
opportunity to contradict not only the statements of his probation officer’s 
supervisor, but also the statements of his probation officer, which were 
testified to by the supervisor.5  Also unavailing is Melody’s final claim that 
he should not have been violated on a probationary sentence he was not 
                                                          
 
4Ingram v. State, 567 A.2d 868, 869 (Del. 1989). 
5The supervisor’s hearsay testimony was properly admitted at the VOP hearing.  Brown 
v. State, 249 A.2d 269, 272 (Del. 1968). 
 
5
serving, since the Superior Court had broad discretionary authority to 
terminate that probationary sentence “at any time.”6 
 
(7) 
The Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Melody’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We are also satisfied that Melody’s counsel has made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and has properly determined that 
Melody could not raise a meritorious claim in this appeal. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to 
affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.  
The motion to withdraw is moot. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                                          
 
6DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 4333; Williams v. State, 560 A.2d 1012, 1015 (Del. 1989).